Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-wdhn8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T17:07:45.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Patch-burn grazing (PBG) as a livestock management alternative for fire-prone ecosystems of North America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2015

J.D. Scasta*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, Agriculture C 2004, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA.
E.T. Thacker
Affiliation:
Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322, USA.
T.J. Hovick
Affiliation:
School of Natural Resource Sciences, North Dakota State University, 202 Hultz Hall, Fargo, North Dakota 58108, USA.
D.M. Engle
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA.
B.W. Allred
Affiliation:
College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, Montana 59812, USA.
S.D. Fuhlendorf
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA.
J.R. Weir
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: jscasta@uwyo.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many rangelands of the world are fire dependent and display a strong interaction between fire and grazing on animal behavior, productivity and ecosystem processes. The application of this fire–grazing interaction as patch-burn grazing (PBG) has recently been promoted in North America to conserve biodiversity and as an alternative for livestock management in fire-prone ecosystems to enhance forage quality and other production benefits. PBG is functionally applied by burning spatially and temporally discrete patches to allow livestock to choose where and when to graze. However, considering that the primary intent of PBG in fire-dependent ecosystems has been for the conservation of biodiversity, we synthesized the peer-reviewed literature to assess PBG as an alternative strategy for livestock management in fire-prone ecosystems. We reviewed the literature to assess PBG as an alternative livestock management approach to optimize animal production and conserve biodiversity in fire-prone ecosystems. We reviewed the results of 83 studies that focused on two main areas: (1) livestock production and inputs and (2) maintaining or improving ecosystem functioning and biodiversity to support sustainable livestock production. PBG can optimize cattle production by offsetting input costs such as supplemental feed, insecticides, herbicides, mechanical brush control, veterinary costs and cross-fencing. PBG can also maintain native herbaceous plant communities that are the resource base for cattle grazing enterprises by reducing woody plant encroachment, stimulating above- and below-ground biomass of native perennial grasses, enhancing nutrient cycling and optimizing plant diversity. PBG creates a habitat mosaic critical for many trophic levels of wildlife, particularly grassland birds, which are currently in decline. Further research is needed to clarify the potential environmental gradients defining applicability of PBG, economic outcomes of PBG, potential gastro-intestinal parasite control with PBG and other metrics of animal production. Overall, PBG is a viable management approach to improve productivity and biodiversity in fire-regulated grassland ecosystems in a manner supported by both fire and grazing disturbances. This is especially true when these communities have other organisms that depend on periodic disturbance and interaction with large animal grazing and is supported by ample empirical research.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Introduction

Many of the world's naturally occurring ecosystems, such as grasslands, savannahs and shrublands are considered fire dependentReference Bond and Keeley 1 and are important for livestock production. The designation as a fire-dependent ecosystem is because regularly occurring fires create a frequent disturbance that regulates ecological patterns and processes. In many fire-dependent ecosystems, this disturbance pattern included the response of large herbivores that were attracted to the nutritious regrowth of recently burned areas after fires removed old standing plant materialReference Yadava 2 Reference Murphy and Bowman 7 . This ecological interaction of fire and grazing, termed pyric-herbivory or fire-driven grazing, results in a shifting mosaic of landscape patterns which increases broad-scale heterogeneityReference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Kerby and Hamilton 8 . The fire regime and the spatio-temporal variability of disturbance patterns maintained grassland by stimulating perennial grasses, shifting competitive interactions and preventing woody plant encroachment. For these reasons, the coupled interaction of fire and grazing has been suggested as an equally important driver of central North American grasslands as climate and soil processesReference Anderson 6 . This fire-grazing phenomena is not unique to North America only, as evidence suggests many vegetation types and organisms of Africa, Asia and Australia are also highly dependent on this ecological interaction as wellReference Yadava 2 , Reference Kramer, Groen and van Wieren 4 Reference Murphy and Bowman 7 .

Unique to North America though, is that over the last two decades, ecologists and conservation-focused organizations such as The Nature Conservancy have tried to restore the interaction of fire and grazing through the use of patch-burn grazing or PBGReference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 Reference Hamilton, Masters and Galley 12 (Fig. 1). Settlement patterns by non-indigenous people had led to the suppression of fire and extirpation of bison, effectively removing these disturbances from the landscapeReference Pyne 13 . Settlers were drawn to the vast expanses of productive forages that could be the foundation of a burgeoning livestock industry in the western USA. Conventional livestock production in these fire-dependent ecosystems has replaced bison with cattle and sought uniformity in grazing patterns and plant communities. Incidentally, suppressing fire and managing for uniform domestic cattle grazing has been to the detriment of many wildlife species, especially grassland birds as a result of the homogenization of vegetation structure and compositionReference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 .

Figure 1. Functional diagram of pyric-herbivory using a 3 yr fire return interval (it does not have to be 3 yr and would likely to be variable depending on site productivity and vegetation). Note the movement of fire and grazing through space and time as cattle follow fire to the most recently burned patches.

PBG uses prescribed burning a patch within a fenced pasture and free access grazing allows bison and cattle to choose burned or unburned areas and moves fire and grazing disturbances around the landscape causing vegetation patterns to shift through space and timeReference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Kerby and Hamilton 8 , Reference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 . Depending upon the elapsed time-since-fire of a given patch, the probability of grazing or burning of that patch varies due to the resulting vegetation structureReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 11 , Reference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 , Reference Wiens, Hutchings, Juhn and Stewart 16 . Moreover, PBG is different from conventional approaches to grazing management because it attempts to integrate conservation of biodiversity with livestock production which is becoming increasingly important in many rangeland landscapes. PBG also differs because it does not require additional fencing to manipulate grazer movements which is common amongst other grazing management practices.

The impetus for PBG research was out of concern for natural resource conservation, with a major focus on wildlife population ecology, native plant conservation and soil processes, etc. More recently, implications for sustaining beef cattle production have been emerging in the literature. Our objectives for this review were to examine the literature for effects of PBG in two areas: (1) livestock production and inputs, and (2) maintaining or improving ecosystem function and biodiversity as necessary for supporting sustainable livestock production. We place this information within the context of North America relative to the promotion of PBG as an alternative for livestock management. We also identify gaps in the knowledge base and recommend areas for additional study.

Materials and Methods

For this review, we defined PBG as the free interaction of native wildlife and domestic livestock with burned and unburned areas on the landscape through space and time. By assessing studies that considered native wildlife, we identified potential benefits to livestock. We defined PBG as the applied managerial approach to restore the interaction of fire and grazing as an ecological process that uses pyric-herbivory or fire-driven grazingReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 11 . We searched the literature using Google Scholar and Web of Science academic search platforms for the following terms: ‘patch-burn grazing’, ‘fire–grazing interaction’, ‘pyric herbivory’ and combinations of ‘fire’, ‘grazing’, ‘livestock’, ‘wildlife’, ‘plants’, ‘birds’, ‘composition’ and ‘structure’. In a few instances, we included information from the non-technical literature including extension bulletins, theses/dissertations and agency reports. We recognized that such information has not always been vetted by the peer-review process, but since these reports may be the only results available regionally, they provided a perspective of where research has occurred and provided ideas for additional empirical inquiry (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Study locations assessing the interaction of fire and grazing in North America.

To understand the effects of PBG across environmental gradients, we then examined the identified literature for consistent livestock-production response variables suitable for meta-analyses and the calculation of effect sizes. Seven studies had consistent measures of cattle weight gains (i.e., calf weaning weight or stocker cattle gains) and three studies had consistent comparative measures of forage quality in burned and unburned areas. Only two studies had consistent resource selection functions for fire and were not suitable for meta-analytic statistics. We calculated the effect size of calf weight gains, yearling weight gains compared with not burning, yearling weight gains compared with burning, and forage quality data using an estimate of the standard mean difference for a measure of effect size using Hedges’ d. Hedges’ d is more suitable for unequal sampling variances in the experimental and control groups than Cohen's d and accounts for small sample sizes with a correction termReference Gurevitch, Hedges, Scheiner and Gurevitch 17 Reference Rosenberg, Adams and Gurevitch 19 . Effect sizes were compared by assessing the variance in the effect and relative magnitude.

We begin by reviewing the effects of PBG on livestock production and inputs and then move to maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity. We present the results of effect size calculations and then summarize constraints and limitations to PBG knowledge currently.

Livestock Production and Inputs

Feed costs

The largest input cost of cattle production is supplemental feed, which exceeds more than half of the direct cost in cow-calf operations but is less in stocker operationsReference Short 20 . Feeding strategies attempt to overcome seasonal periods of inadequate forage quality such as the winter in perennial C4 grasslands of North America and/or periods of inadequate forage quantity such as periods of droughtReference Waterman, Geary, Paterson and Lipsey 21 . Reports on the value of patchy fires for cattle production in native fire-dependent ecosystems date back to the 1960s. A study in native longleaf pine—bluestem rangeland reported that patchy fires every 3 yr increased forage palatability, nutritive value, herbaceous plant dominance and cow and calf weight gainsReference Duvall and Whitaker 22 . Patchy fires also increased cattle gains, crude protein content of forage plants and utilization of wiregrasses (Aristida spp. and Sporobolus spp.)Reference Hilmon and Hughes 23 . In coastal prairies, patchy fires in gulf cordgrass (Spartina spartinae (Trin.) Merr. ex Hitchc.) increased dietary crude protein content and in vitro organic matter digestibility sustaining or increasing steer gainsReference Angell, Stuth and Drawe 24 . Forage quality of burned patches in tallgrass prairie exceeded unburned patches by a factor of four with 18 and 4% crude protein, respectivelyReference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Elmore 25 . Accordingly, cattle use of the recently burned patch is greatly disproportionate to the area of the patch. For example, 75% of grazing time has been in the most recently burned patch in tallgrass prairieReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 .

PBG optimizes forage quantity in patches that have not been burned for an extended period of time – and subsequently have not been grazed – and have accumulated forage that could be considered as stockpiled forage or standing hayReference McGranahan, Henderson, Hill, Raicovich, Wilson and Smith 26 . Late winter fires in shortgrass steppe did not affect herbaceous plant production but did increase in vitro dry matter digestibility of the dominant C4 grass [Bouteloua gracilis (Willd. ex Kunth) Lag. ex Griffiths], providing a neutral effect on forage quantity and a short-term enhancement of forage qualityReference Augustine, Derner and Milchunas 27 . In addition, some studies have reported an increase in productivity for both C3 and C4 perennial grasses, specifically [Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.)Reference Vermeire, Crowder and Wester 28 A. Love and Schizachrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash]Reference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Kerby 29 . As a result, PBG can be strategically used to optimize forage quality and quantity, potentially mediating feed costs by providing both high quality forage (low quantity) and high quantity forage (low quality).

In the southern Great Plains of the USA, both cow-calf and stocker cattle enterprises reported that PBG did not decrease production and at times maximized production over multiple years, compared with the regionally common grazing practices which did not include fire or burned entire pastures every few yearsReference Jamison and Underwood 30 , Reference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 . In the northern Great Plains of the USA, PBG has maintained or increased weaning weights of calves and maintained body condition of mature cowsReference Baumann 32 , Reference Winter, Fuhlendorf and Goes 33 . Managers have also reported delaying winter supplemental feeding due to the extension of higher forage quality in the fall in pastures managed with PBGReference Weir, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Bidwell, Chad Cummings, Elmore, Limb, Allred, Scasta and Winter 34 . Lastly, a recent multi-year study compared PBG with the practice of annually burning the entire pasture and seasonally grazing stocker cattle, a common practice in the Flint Hills region of the USA. This study reported that PBG had nearly similar animal gain during dry years providing a risk management strategy against droughtReference Allred, Scasta, Hovick, Fuhlendorf and Hamilton 35 .

Parasites and disease

Parasites constitute another major source of potential economic loss and input costs for cattle enterprises. A 4 yr study comparing PBG with traditional management significantly reduced ticks (Amblyomma americanum L.) on both cows and calves, regardless if the control pastures were completely burned or not burned at allReference Polito, Baum, Payton, Little, Fuhlendorf and Reichard 36 . PBG also reduced horn flies (Haematobia irritans L.) 41% compared with no burning, reducing fly levels below the economic threshold for insecticidal treatmentsReference Scasta, Engle, Talley, Weir, Stansberry, Fuhlendorf and Harr 37 . Reductions in face flies (Musca autumnalis DeGeer) have also been reported and reductions of these flies is in part due to combustion of fecal resources, but PBG reductions of flies can be limited during droughtReference Scasta, Weir, Engle and Carlson 38 , Reference Scasta 39 . Although no studies have reported the effects of fire on cattle gastro-intestinal parasites, Stone's sheep (Ovis dalli stonei Nelson) with access to burned areas had ~10% lungworm (Protostrongylus spp.) infection as those grazing unburned areas onlyReference Seip and Bunnell 40 .

Both horn flies and ticks serve as vectors for many diseases resulting in additional input costs for medicine and veterinary services. Conventional insecticidal management is expensive and variable in efficacy because of rapidly developing genetic resistanceReference Birkett, Agelopoulos, Jensen, Jespersen, Pickett, Prijs, Thomas, Trapman, Wadhams and Woodcock 41 Reference Oyarzún, Quiroz and Birkett 44 . Ticks serve as vectors for bacterial, viral and protozoal disease agents that can also lead to paralysis, toxicosis, irritation and allergyReference de la Fuente, Almazan, Canales, Perez de la Lastra, Kocan and Willadsen 42 . Horn flies have been implicated in the transmission of bovine leukosis virus, helminths of the skin and moreReference Buxton, Hinkle and Schultz 45 . Animal health related costs account for 7–13% of operating costsReference Short 20 , so reducing ecto-parasite pressure with PBG, or any effective cultural approach for that matter, will lead to a reduction in animal health costs by reducing exposure to diseasesReference Polito, Baum, Payton, Little, Fuhlendorf and Reichard 36 , Reference Scasta, Engle, Talley, Weir, Stansberry, Fuhlendorf and Harr 37 . Furthermore, the lack of fire leads to the encroachment of Juniperus virginiana (L.) that is positively correlated with Culex tarsalis (Coquillett), a mosquito vectoring West Nile virus, a threat to animals and humansReference O'Brien and Reiskind 46 .

Physical dermatitis

Many rangeland plants have physical defense mechanisms that deter grazing including thorns and pointed leaves that can injure upon contactReference dos Reis 47 . A well-known example is prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.) which has spines that reduce forage consumption, and cause physical damage to the mouth and upper GI tract of sheep, goats and cattleReference Migaki, Hinson, Imes and Garner 48 , Reference McMillan, Scott, Taylor and Huston 49 . Fire can offer a practical and economical strategy to remove the spines and reduce contact dermatitisReference McMillan, Scott, Taylor and Huston 49 . PBG in semiarid grassland also attracted pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana Ord) at densities 7–26 times greater in spring and winter burned patches than unburned patches, resulting in a 5x increase of bitten or uprooted cactus cladodes in burn patches and a 54–71% reduction of cactus during the first year of burningReference Augustine and Derner 50 . This reduction in cactus density attributed to the interaction of fire and pronghorn grazing was maintained for at least 6 yr after burning.

Resource selection

PBG allows grazing animals to make resource selection decisions without forcing that is applied with other grazing management strategies such as cross-fencingReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 , Reference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Elmore 25 . However, cross-fencing can be useful to divide large pastures into multiple paddocks to assist in locating and managing cattle. Patchy fires increase forage utilization in burn patches compared with unburned areas but still allows animals to select locations without restricting animals to a fenced paddockReference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 . Herding could affect resource selection decisions in a low-stress scenario but human resources are increasingly difficult to find and herding would only achieve one of the many other benefits that PBG realizes.

Diet diversity, inter-animal competition and reproduction

Dietary diversity has positive associative effects for herbivores but constructing species mixtures that complement one another in nutrient content and secondary compounds is not well understoodReference Provenza, Villalba, Haskell, MacAdam, Griggs and Wiedmeier 51 . PBG allows cattle to respond to burned patches and shifts the grazing decision from the plant scale to the patch scale, so consumption of a greater variety of plants is expected. This change in dietary selection is demonstrated by studies reporting PBG causing cattle to graze plant species that they typically avoid without fireReference Hilmon and Hughes 23 , Reference Coppedge, Engle, Toepfer and Shaw 52 Reference Cummings, Engle and Fuhlendorf 54 . At The Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Osage County, Oklahoma, USA, fire and grazing have been recoupled at the landscape scale. This has allowed fire and bison grazing to freely interact, resulting in high bison reproductive rates without nutritional supplementationReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 11 . The direct benefits to animal welfare may be the least understood benefit of PBG.

Herbicides for invasive weed management

Another threat to sustainable livestock enterprises is the encroachment and dominance of unpalatable exotic or native herbaceous plants that are often combatted with herbicides. In the southern Great Plains and Midwestern USA, an exotic legume, sericea lespedeza or Chinese bushclover [Lespedeza cuneata (Dum.Cours.) G.Don], is a threat and management challenge to cattle producers. As L. cuneata invades it creates monocultures that displace native grasses, alters structure and composition of plant communities and decreases overall grazable forageReference Price and Weltzin 55 . Ranchers and conservation organizations have reported allocating a substantial portion of their operating budget spraying for L. cuneata, often with only marginal successReference Palmer 56 , Reference Cook and Hickman 57 .

A primary mechanism facilitating L. cuneata invasion and dominance over native plant communities is the high tannin levels that deter grazingReference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Monaco and Will 58 . The application of PBG overcomes the tannin grazing deterrent and increases herbivory. This slows the rate of invasion—three times slower than in traditionally managed pasturesReference Cummings, Engle and Fuhlendorf 54 . Functionally, PBG results in focal grazing that begins at an early plant growth stage after fire and grazing continues to perpetuate an earlier phenological stage.

Restoring the fire disturbance alone can be applied to manage other problematic weeds on North America rangelands. For example, fire reduced broom snakeweed [Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh) Britton & Rusby], prickly pear cactus (Opuntia polyacantha Haw.), and purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea Nutt.)Reference McDaniel, Hart and Carroll 59 Reference Strong, Ganguli and Vermeire 61 . Fire may also restore the C4 grass component in areas dominated by C3 annual grassesReference Ansley, Boutton, Mirik, Castellano and Kramp 62 . Fire has also been effectively restored in areas that are invaded by naturalized C3 grasses but additional information is currently lacking on if or how fire may reduce exotic C3 grassesReference Scasta 39 . Ultimately, PBG and the restoration of regular fire has the potential to slow exotic or invasive plant encroachment and dominance, reduce herbicide application costs and minimize losses to the grazable forage base.

Mechanical tree and brush control management

Woody plant encroachment is another threat to livestock production. Species such as eastern redcedar (J. virginiana) convert open grassland to closed woodland in as little as 40 yrReference Briggs, Hoch and Johnson 63 . Historically, fires relegated these non-sprouting and fire sensitive trees to shallow soils and topography where fire was unlikely to spread. The low growing canopy of J. virginiana reduces herbaceous plant production and grazing capacityReference Engle, Stritzke and Claypool 64 , Reference Limb, Engle, Alford and Hellgren 65 . Other Juniperus species, such as Juniperus ashei (J. Buchholz) and Juniperus pinchotii (Sudw.) are similarly problematic in other regions of the USAReference Ansley and Rasmussen 66 .

Ranchers have applied a variety of costly and temporary mechanical brush control practices (mowing, hand cutting, bulldozing, roller chopping) but fire may be the most economical and effective for non-resprouting and resprouting woody plantsReference Teague, Borchardt, Ansley, Pinchak, Cox, Foy and McGrann 67 , Reference Bidwell, Weir and Engle 68 . PBG offers a practical framework for applying regular fire to reduce the need for costly mechanical brush control costs. PBG has the potential to be more effective at reducing woody plant encroachment than complete burning pastures. The burned areas draw grazing animals from unburned areas which then can accumulate adequate fuel for the next successful fire and creates fire breaks by focusing grazing and removing fine fuels in other areasReference Kerby, Fuhlendorf and Engle 69 . This pattern of fuel accumulation driven by fire-grazing patterns enhances the potential success of prescribed fires for brush control because continuous grazing and burning pastures completely may not support the frequency of burning neededReference Weir, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Bidwell, Chad Cummings, Elmore, Limb, Allred, Scasta and Winter 34 , Reference Teague, Borchardt, Ansley, Pinchak, Cox, Foy and McGrann 67 , Reference Ansley, Pinchak, Teague, Kramp, Jones and Barnett 70 .

Encroachment by resprouting shrubs is also a concern in fire-dependent ecosystems. These shrub species are able to resprout basally and/or epicormatically, and are not killed by fire. Fire, however, can alter the structure of these shrubs benefitting the herbaceous plant community important for cattle grazingReference Heisler, Briggs, Knapp, Blair and Seery 71 . PBG with summer fires reduced cover of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr.) and other resprouting shrubs facilitating herbaceous plant recoveryReference Teague, Duke, Waggoner, Dowhower and Gerrard 72 . Therefore, regular fire has the potential to slow the invasion of undesirable plants that can reduce forage available for cattle and offset the need for expensive and temporary mechanical brush control costs.

Nitrogen (N) availability

Net primary productivity of most terrestrial ecosystems is N limited and this leads to additional input costs for livestock productionReference LeBauer and Treseder 73 . Functionally, N is critical for plant growth and microbial breakdown of cellulosic material in the rumen of cattleReference Belasco 74 . In tallgrass prairie, PBG enhances N availability by interactively cycling nutrients rapidly with fire followed by focal grazingReference Anderson, Fuhlendorf and Engle 75 . The authors explicitly stated this interaction between fire and grazing and the resulting increase in plant available N may offer a strategic management approach for sustaining livestock production; likely because N content is used to calculate crude protein, the primary measure of feed quality. Furthermore, the disturbance of fire in tallgrass prairie removes litter, increasing productivity, nutrient cycling and plant available NReference Knapp and Seastedt 76 , Reference Blair 77 . In shortgrass steppe, PBG with March burns created a pulse of N with enhanced soil N availability in June and JulyReference Augustine, Derner and Milchunas 27 . Considering the different inputs managers use in the attempt to distribute/increase N across the landscape (supplemental feed high in N content, fertilizer, establish exotic legumes, etc.), the accelerated nutrient cycling associated with PBG could offset these inputs. However, the short-term N pulse post-fire needs to be understood in context with potential net volatile loss of N and subsequent N:carbon dynamics relative to ecosystem stability.

Grazing distribution

Grazing distribution continues to be a major challenge for livestock production in North AmericaReference Holechek, Pieper and Herbel 78 . Managers have used a variety of inputs to manipulate grazing distribution across the landscape, including cross-fencing, mobile feeders, low moisture blocks, herding, water and moreReference Bailey 79 . Cross-fencing, in particular, is expensive for the initial construction and the required maintenance. A 2011 study estimated the cost of construction to exceed US$5000 per kilometer, with 8% of the initial cost needed annually for maintenanceReference Knight, Toombs and Derner 80 . PBG distributes grazing by manipulating forage quality with fire as opposed to cross-fencing, developing water, moving feeds, etc. The attraction to the recently burned areas tends to override topography, distance to water or shade even in semi-arid areas and result in cattle spending a majority of time grazing in recently burned patchesReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 , Reference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Elmore 25 , Reference Clark, Jaechoul, Kyungduk, Nielson, Johnson, Ganskopp, Chigbrow, Pierson and Hardegree 81 , Reference Clark, Jaechoul, Kyungduk, Nielson, Johnson, Ganskopp, Pierson and Hardegree 82 . A 3 yr study reported economic returns from PBG on tallgrass prairie could exceed those of management intensive grazing on endophyte infected tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort., nom. cons.] pasture due to almost ten times greater input cost primarily from fencing and water developmentReference Jamison and Underwood 30 , Reference Davit and Alleger 83 .

Ecological costs and risks associated with cross-fencing rangeland can affect woody plant encroachment and wildlife movements. Cross-fencing increases perches for birds and serves as a recruitment pathway for bird-dispersed seeds of woody plants especially J. virginiana, a major threat to North American grasslandsReference McDonnell 84 , Reference Coppedge, Engle, Fuhlendorf, Masters and Gregory 85 . Cross-fences increase collisions of Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Ridgway) and Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus Bonaparte)Reference Stevens, Reese, Connelly and Musil 86 and inhibit migrating ungulates such as pronghorn antelope, which typically go through fences as opposed to jumping themReference Scott 87 . The use of spatially and temporally discrete fires could serve as an ecological proxy for cross-fencing while reducing overhead, financial risks and ecological risks.

Ecosystem Function and Biodiversity

Plant composition and structure

The most common approaches to cattle production either completely exclude fire or burn everything, with the former being most predominant in North America with a few exceptions such as the Flint Hills in Kansas and Oklahoma USA. These two common approaches may only benefit certain segments of the plant community. For example, the interaction of fire and grazing in PBG stimulates below- and above-ground biomass of one of the most common perennial C4 grasses in mixed and tallgrass prairies, little bluestem [Schizachrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash]Reference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Kerby 29 . The interaction of fire and grazing can also improve plant root tissue quality and initiate faster cycling of NReference Johnson and Matchett 88 . In tallgrass prairie, the interactive disturbance of fire and grazing increases plant diversity due to the release of forbs that are often inhibited by the structurally dominating tallgrass speciesReference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 , Reference Coppedge, Engle, Toepfer and Shaw 52 , Reference Helzer and Steuter 53 . Thus, PBG integrates fire and grazing disturbances that optimize native grasses that are critical for ruminant livestock and can increase floristic diversity of fire-dependent ecosystems.

The primary intent of PBG has been to restore patterns of landscape heterogeneity because heterogeneity is the root of biological diversity at all levels of ecological organization and scalesReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 11 , Reference Wiens 89 . Many studies have reported that PBG increased heterogeneity of vegetation visual obstruction, or contrast between patches, at the patch scale as opposed to methods that promote homogeneity through annual burning and grazing or not burning at allReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 , Reference Winter, Fuhlendorf, Goad, Davis, Hickman and Leslie 90 Reference McGranahan, Raicovich, Wilson and Smith 92 . In ecosystems with a dominant shrub component, such as sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia Torr.), PBG restored heterogeneous vegetation patterns and maintained herbaceous plant dominance and plant successionReference Winter, Fuhlendorf, Goad, Davis, Hickman and Leslie 90 .

However, not all studies have resulted in the desired level of heterogeneityReference McGranahan, Engle, Fuhlendorf, Winter, Miller and Debinski 93 . Constraints to heterogeneity management include overgrazing prior to attempting to burn, exotic species and stocking rateReference Scasta 39 . These constraints modify the fuel bed and limit fire spread. Furthermore, the interactive effects of fire and grazing on structural heterogeneity are scale dependent and in some areas may also be constrained by topographyReference Collins and Smith 94 , Reference Augustine and Derner 95 . In desert grasslands, the interaction of fire and grazing can lead to a decrease in perennial grass cover but an increase in species diversity; tradeoffs that warrant further examinationReference Drewa and Havstad 96 . The lack of structural heterogeneity in highly disturbed plant communities, potentially negative effects on the plant community in arid environments and variability in plant–herbivore interactions across a gradient of precipitation and evolutionary histories continues to be a gap in the literatureReference Milchunas, Sala and Lauenroth 97 .

Soil and water resources

The shifting mosaic of vegetation patterns and attraction of animals to recently burned areas overrides other resource selection criteria for cattle and has been hypothesized to potentially reduce animal preference for riparian areas. A study in semi-arid rangeland reported PBG led cattle to select riparian areas five times less than cattle in traditionally managed pastures, effectively reducing the impact of disturbance due to grazingReference Hiatt 98 . Given the preference of cattle for both shade and water, along with predictions for a warming climate, PBG can strategically mitigate the risk to riparian areas being overutilized and degradedReference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Hovick, Elmore, Engle and Joern 99 . PBG also creates a shifting pattern of vegetation structures that varies through space and time and reduces or eliminates ‘sacrifice’ areas where animals congregate resulting in degradationReference Teague, Duke, Waggoner, Dowhower and Gerrard 72 .

A study on PBG in coarse textured sandy soils found an increased rate of erosion on burned patches although no drifting or blowouts were observedReference Vermeire, Wester, Mitchell and Fuhlendorf 100 . In the same study, when spring weather promoted early plant growth, erosion was similar between burned and unburned patchesReference Vermeire, Wester, Mitchell and Fuhlendorf 100 . This study also found soil water content and plant productivity were unaffected by PBG but soils in burned patches were 1–3°C warmer than unburned plots. A study on silty clay loam soils also resulted in warmer soil surface, more bare ground, less litter, greater runoff depth and greater sediment loss in recently burned patches but no difference in soil compaction, soil C, or total NReference Ozaslan, Parlak, Blanco-Canqui, Schacht, Guretzky and Mamo 101 .

Invertebrates

The subsequent effects of the interaction of fire and grazing span many trophic levels of wildlife, including invertebrates. A mesic prairie study reported 50% greater total invertebrate biomass and greater abundance of multiple invertebrate orders in the patch that was burned and focally grazed the previous year compared with traditionally managed pasturesReference Engle, Fuhlendorf, Roper and Leslie 102 . A similar study in semi-arid sagebrush communities reported that Araneae needs unburned areas, Hemiptera needs burned areas, and Orthoptera equally use areas that are both burned and unburnedReference Doxon, Winter, Davis and Fuhlendorf 103 .

Pollinators may also benefit from PBG as Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) increased concurrently with increases in the host plant green antelopehorn milkweed (Asclepias viridis Walter) in patch-burned pastures that used summer firesReference Baum and Sharber 104 . Other butterfly studies have reported variable responses to fire and grazing with different species having different sensitivities to elapsed time since fire and grazingReference Moranz 105 , Reference Moranz, Debinski, McGranahan, Engle and Miller 106 . However, it is evident from these studies that butterflies are sensitive to changes in the herbaceous plant community. The risk of not burning at all is a potential shift to a woodland state and alternatively, burning entire areas can reduce larvae and potentially eliminate populations that inhabit isolated grassland fragmentsReference Debinski, Vogel, Koford and Miller 107 , Reference Vogel, Debinski, Koford and Miller 108 .

Many of the native nectar plants that pollinators depend on are forbs which increase with PBGReference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 , Reference Coppedge, Engle, Toepfer and Shaw 52 . Another example is the need to maintain native vegetation by using fire to combat cedar (Juniperus spp.) encroachment to conserve the federally endangered American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus Olivier) and other grassland obligate detritivoresReference Walker and Hoback 109 . The spatio–temporal interaction of fire and grazing has important implications for invertebrate biodiversity.

Grassland birds

Grassland birds have been declining over the last several decades and PBG restores structural and compositional heterogeneity to the benefit of grassland bird speciesReference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 , Reference Wiens 89 , Reference Powell 110 , Reference Pillsbury, Miller, Debinski and Engle 111 . Increased landscape heterogeneity from PBG creates greater diversity and abundance of grassland obligate birds by offering a broader range of habitat structures that benefit all life phases and help moderate thermal extremesReference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 , Reference Coppedge, Fuhlendorf, Harrell and Engle 112 . Species reported to be declining across their historical range tend to occur at the extreme ends of the spectrum of vegetation structure; Upland sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda Bechstein) prefer recently burned and heavily grazed patches while Henslow's sparrows (Ammodramus henslowii Audubon) require patches not recently burned or grazedReference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 . Similar research reported increased bird species richness and greater abundance of Horned Larks (Eremophila alpestris L.) in PBG pastures in comparison with control pasturesReference Jamison and Underwood 30 . Additionally, bird demographic studies reported increased nest survival for Dickcissels (Spiza americana Gmelin) and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum Gmelin) in PBG pastures compared with pastures with homogenous vegetative structureReference Churchwell, Davis, Fuhlendorf and Engle 113 , Reference Hovick, Miller, Dinsmore, Engle, Debinski and Fuhlendorf 114 . The heterogeneity created by PBG increases diversity and stability in breeding and non-breeding grassland bird communitiesReference Hovick, Elmore, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Hamilton 115 , Reference Hovick, Elmore and Fuhlendorf 116 .

A long-term assessment of grassland birds over two decades suggests that fire and grazing must be variable in intensity of disturbance and restore heterogeneity if grassland birds are to be conservedReference Powell 110 . In the western USA, Mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus Townsend) are also tightly coupled with the fire-grazing disturbance that creates low statured and bare ground habitat they requireReference Augustine and Derner 95 . Patchy fires are also required by Northern Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus L.) to provide the suite of vegetation structure needed for all life phases and PBG has been suggested as the best strategy for providing this habitat mosaicReference Hernández and Guthery 117 , Reference Bidwell, Masters, Sams and Tully 118 . Finally, a patchy application of disturbance to tallgrass prairie has consistently been recommended to prevent the continued decline of Greater Prairie-Chickens throughout the Flint Hills of Kansas and Oklahoma, USAReference Robbins, Peterson and Ortega-Huerta 119 , Reference McNew, Preby and Sandercock 120 . These results support the role of PBG in integrating grazing and biological conservation by restoring critical disturbance processes that shape grassland environments for birds obligated to this type of habitatReference Griebel, Winter and Steuter 121 . These results indicate that PBG provides an alternative to homogeneous management on rangelands or the idea of managing towards the middle which are common practices across most rangelands in North AmericaReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 , Reference Holechek, Pieper and Herbel 78 .

Mammals

PBG creates a mosaic of patches with different amounts of vegetation biomass, forage quality and structure, whereby different patches may be used differently by different wildlife species. For example, deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus Wagner) were ten times more abundant on burned patches, but hispid pocket mice (Chaetodipus hispidus Baird) were ten times more abundant on intermediate patches. Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus Say & Ord), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster Wagner) and fulvous harvest mice (Reithrodontomys fulvescens J. A. Allen) all dominated patches not burned in >2 yrReference Fuhlendorf, Townsend, Elmore and Engle 122 . Patchy fires that are focally grazed also influenced black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus Ord) with colonies expanding two times faster into burned areas compared with unburned areas in shortgrass steppeReference Augustine, Cully and Johnson 123 , Reference Breland 124 .

Large mammals also require diversity in habitat. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann) grazed summer burned areas with peak use occurring within the first 2 months after fireReference Meek, Cooper, Owens, Cooper and Wappel 125 . In sagebrush communities, elk (Cervus elaphus L.) had greater herbivory of burn patches the first 2 yr after fireReference Dyke and Darragh 126 . Similar long-term effects were reported for the winter nutritional plane of C. canadensis and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus Rafinesque) with positive associative effects lasting up to 2 yrReference Hobbs and Spowart 127 . The value of burned areas may be increasingly important for winter habitat and nutrition as elk and bison used burned patches more than expected especially during mid to late winterReference Pearson, Turner, Wallace and Romme 128 . From a conservation standpoint, the use of patchy fire has also been suggested as a habitat restoration tool for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw)Reference Bleich, Johnson, Holl, Konde, Torres and Krausman 129 , Reference Holl, Bleich, Callenberger and Bahro 130 . Stone's sheep (O. dalli stonei) in sub-alpine and alpine ranges also benefit from patchy fires due to greater forage quantity on burned range that resulted in lower internal parasite loads and greater lamb crops than sheep on unburned rangeReference Seip and Bunnell 40 .

Data Analyses: Effect Size of Livestock Production Variables across Gradients

Calf weaning weight: PBG versus burning entire pasture every third year

Only two studies presented suitable data for meta-analyses of calf weaning weights under PBG managementReference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 , Reference Winter, Fuhlendorf and Goes 33 . Both studies compared PBG with burning entire pastures every third year and the studies were located in southeastern Nebraska, USAReference Winter, Fuhlendorf and Goes 33 and north-central Oklahoma, USAReference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 . The Nebraska study had an effect size and variance of 0.51 ± 0.69 and the Oklahoma study had an effect size of −0.10 ± 0.50. Overall calf weaning weights under PBG did not differ from those pastures managed with fire every third year (effect size = 0.16 ± 0.60; Fig. 3A).

Figure 3. Patch-burn grazing (PBG) effect sizes along precipitation gradients for (A) calf weaning weights versus burning entire pastures every third year, (B) yearling cattle weight gains versus burning entire pastures every third year or burning annually, and (C) yearling cattle weight gains versus not burning at all.

Yearling cattle weight gain: PBG versus burning entire pasture every third year or burning annually

Only two studies presented suitable data for meta-analyses of yearling cattle weight gains under PBG management compared with management from different spatio-temporal applications of fireReference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 , Reference Allred, Scasta, Hovick, Fuhlendorf and Hamilton 35 . Both studies compared PBG with burning entire pastures every third year and both studies were located in north-central Oklahoma, USAReference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 , Reference Allred, Scasta, Hovick, Fuhlendorf and Hamilton 35 . The effect size of −0.36 ± 0.51 and −0.25 ± 0.34 (Stillwater and Pawhuska, respectively) did not differ. Overall, yearling cattle weight gain under PBG did not differ from those pastures managed with fire every third year (effect size = −0.29 ± 0.42; Fig. 3B).

Yearling cattle weight gain: PBG versus not burning at all

Three studies presented suitable data for meta-analyses of yearling cattle weight gains under PBG management compared with not burning at allReference Angell, Stuth and Drawe 24 , Reference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 , Reference Augustine and Derner 131 . Studies were located across an annual precipitation gradient ranging from 339 mm in the shortgrass steppe near Nunn, Colorado, USAReference Augustine and Derner 131 , 725 mm in the mixed grass prairie near Bessie, Oklahoma, USAReference Limb, Fuhlendorf, Engle, Weir, Elmore and Bidwell 31 , and 877 mm in the coastal prairie near Sinton, Texas, USAReference Angell, Stuth and Drawe 24 . The effect size was 0.36 ± 0.51 in the shortgrass steppe location, 0.81 ± 0.20 in the mixed grass prairie location and 1.49 ± 0.86 in the coastal prairie location, with error bars that only overlapped zero in the shortgrass steppe location. Overall, yearling cattle weight gain with PBG was greater than when not burned (effect size = 0.80 ± 0.52; Fig. 3C). Furthermore, this limited data set suggests the possibility for increasing yearling cattle weight gains as annual precipitation increases with patchy fires.

Forage quality

Three studies presented suitable data for meta-analyses of forage quality with and without fireReference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Elmore 25 , Reference Hiatt 98 , Reference Augustine and Derner 131 . Studies were located across an annual precipitation gradient ranging from 339 mm in the shortgrass steppe near Nunn, Colorado, USAReference Augustine and Derner 131 , 725 mm in the mixed grass prairie near Bessie, Oklahoma, USAReference Hiatt 98 , and 1,005 mm in the tallgrass prairie near Pawhuska, Oklahoma, USAReference Allred, Fuhlendorf, Engle and Elmore 25 . Crude protein was 15.5% ± 0.8 in burned patches and 8.8% ± 0.8 in unburned patches in the shortgrass steppe location, 15.5% ± 0.3 and 7.6% ± 0.2, respectively, in the mixed grass prairie location, and 16.9% ± 0.5 and 4.1% ± 0.1, respectively, in the tallgrass prairie location (Fig. 4A). The effect size was 3.8 ± 1.4 in the shortgrass steppe location, 5.5 ± 1.4 in the mixed grass prairie location and 12.5 ± 6.9 in the tallgrass prairie location, with error bars that never overlapped zero (Fig. 4B).

Figure 4. Crude protein comparison along the precipitation gradient for burned and unburned sites. (A) Presents the mean and (B) presents the effect size.

Overall forage quality with fire was greater than forage quality without fire (effect size = 5.4 ± 3.2; error bars did not overlap zero; Fig. 4B). Furthermore, this limited data set suggests the strength of attraction to burned areas increases with precipitation. The up-side potential of forage quality post-fire only had a range of 1.4% but the down-side consequence of forage quality without fire had a range of 4.7%, indicating that as you move across the precipitation gradient the attraction to burned areas may be greater in higher precipitation zones due to a greater feedback, and potential negative consequence, driven by low-forage quality in unburned areas. This corresponds to 75% of grazing time spent in burned patches in tallgrass prairieReference Fuhlendorf and Engle 15 compared with only 31% in mixed grass prairieReference Augustine and Derner 131 .

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion

This review has examined PBG as a livestock management alternative for fire-prone ecosystems in North America, a unique approach to grazing management on this continent with potential international applicationReference Yadava 2 , Reference Kramer, Groen and van Wieren 4 Reference Murphy and Bowman 7 , Reference Pyne 13 Reference Vinton, Hartnett, Finck and Briggs 3 Reference Pyne 13 Reference Archibald, Bond, Stock and Fairbanks 5 . This review has been restricted to a single continent, and the majority of recent research has come from the Great Plains of North America. However, empirical studies span temperature and precipitation gradients (Fig. 2). The literature supports PBG as an alternative management strategy to sustain production by sustaining or optimizing cattle gains, optimizing forage quality and quantity, mitigating the negative effects of drought, reducing parasite pressure and insecticide treatments, reducing chemical and mechanical weed and brush control inputs, reducing N additions and offering an alternative to expensive cross-fencing and water development to overcome grazing distribution constraints (Table 1). Globally, low-input pasture based livestock production systems are essential for meeting societal demands for goods and services but additional strategies that potentially mitigate climate and market fluctuations will enhance sustainabilityReference Pyne 13 Reference Anderson 6 , Reference Pyne 13 Reference Murphy and Bowman 7 . Because input costs and drought threaten the sustainability of livestock production, realizing the potential benefits of PBG to offset these threats is a potential sustainability strategy for fire-prone ecosystems of North AmericaReference Pyne 13 Reference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Kerby and Hamilton 8 .

Table 1. Summary of potential benefits of patch-burn grazing (PBG) for animal production.

A critical benefit of the PBG process driven approach is the ability to integrate livestock production and natural resource conservation in multifunctional working landscapes by restoring critical ecological functions and maintaining perennial herbaceous vegetation; features that should be considered part of a renewable agriculture and food systemReference Pyne 13 Reference Fuhlendorf, Harrell, Engle, Hamilton, Davis and Leslie 9 Reference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 Reference Bond and Keeley 1 (Table 2). Land managers should not have to choose one over the other but rather should be able to integrate the two in a complementary approach. Many of the native insects, birds and mammals are dependent on fire-grazing processes to increase suitability for breeding habitats, thermal regulation and foraging opportunitiesReference Moranz, Debinski, McGranahan, Engle and Miller 106 , Reference Churchwell, Davis, Fuhlendorf and Engle 113 , Reference Fuhlendorf, Townsend, Elmore and Engle 122 . The resulting patterns and vegetation succession optimize the variable habitat and foraging needs of a wide spectrum of speciesReference Wiens 89 . Furthermore, native plant species and communities are maintained and woody plant encroachment is minimized. Native wildlife species that are of concern can be managed in concert with cattle production and potentially enhancedReference Vermeire, Mitchell, Fuhlendorf and Gillen 14 Reference Yadava 2 .

Table 2. Summary of potential ecological benefits associated with the interaction of fire and grazing applied as patch-burn grazing (PBG).

Potential negative impacts and limitations

The application of PBG is not without limitations or knowledge gaps. Some ecosystems may be so constrained by moisture that fire did not occur very often and large ungulate grazing was not a prevalent disturbance; for example, the four major North American deserts, and some ecosystems, such as the Palouse prairieReference Holechek, Pieper and Herbel 78 (Fig. 2). Some ecosystems have fire sensitive species that are critical to conservation, such as big sagebrush communities (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) and patchy fires may need to be reconsidered and modified in terms of spatial scale, temporal scale and seasonalityReference Pyne 13 Reference Anderson 6 . However, sagebrush communities are threatened not only by the encroachment of woody shrubs such as Juniperus spp. and Pinus spp., but are also threatened by wildfire that could cause rapid and expansive mortality due to the intense fire behavior and extentReference Shindler, Gordon, Brunson and Olsen 137 . Thus, additional research is needed on how patchy fires can be applied in a sustainable manner to optimize non-sprouting Artemisia spp. and minimize woody plant encroachment and wildfire threats. Regarding semi-arid rangelands, a recent PBG study using a 4 yr fire return interval reported grazing preference for the most recently burn patch, however, the preference was lower than the reports from mesic ecosystemsReference Augustine and Derner 131 . Another study in sagebrush steppe showed that patchy fires altered cattle resource selection and overcame limitations of slope, sagebrush dominance and distance to upland water and lasted for 2–3 yrReference Clark, Jaechoul, Kyungduk, Nielson, Johnson, Ganskopp, Chigbrow, Pierson and Hardegree 81 . Drought also has confounded the effects of PBG on grassland birds and livestock parasites and if climate forecasts continue, additional research on the efficacy under precipitation extremes is neededReference Bond and Keeley 1 Reference Vinton, Hartnett, Finck and Briggs 3 Reference Yadava 2 , Reference Scasta, Engle, Talley, Weir, Fuhlendorf and Debinski 143 . Therefore, we suggest additional research is needed on the controls of the strength and timing of the fire–grazing interaction in more arid ecosystems and how to apply prescribed fire to mimic historical fire return intervals across broad temperature and precipitation gradients. This type of information will broaden our understanding of how herbivores respond to fire across a precipitation gradient and assist managers in tailoring the spatial and temporal prescription for fire–grazing interactions accordingly. Further research is also needed on the additional cost-benefit analyses of diet optimization, the livestock effects from burning in different seasons of the year and potential effects on gastrointestinal parasites of livestock. Lastly, while not all studies have resulted in the desired level of structural heterogeneity, the potential constraint of grazing management decisions and the time required for fire to effectively drive grazing patterns needs additional researchReference Scasta 39 , Reference McGranahan, Engle, Fuhlendorf, Winter, Miller and Debinski 93 .

Conclusions

Ultimately, the data from numerous studies are the evidence that PBG can benefit cattle production, ecosystem function and rural citizens over the long-term and is a renewable livestock system in fire prone plant communities. The broad geographical range of studies in North America indicates that the attraction of herbivores to recently burned patches spans both precipitation and temperature gradients (Fig. 2). While some of the studies discussed here are not strictly PBG with livestock, they do express the need for frequent fire to control woody plants. Consequently, fire is critical and PBG is a method that re-incorporates fire while integrating grazing. PBG is a bottom-up approach to grazing management that is ecologically process-based and low-input allowing animals to behave and respond to heterogeneity. Conversely, most other grazing strategies, such as rotational grazing, are top-down approaches that impose command-and-control and are high-inputReference Holling and Meffe 144 , Reference Teague, Dowhower, Baker, Ansley, Kreuter, Conover and Waggoner 145 . High-input command-and-control approaches do not always result in increases in production and often result in lower animal performance and lower long-term sustainabilityReference Coppedge, Engle, Fuhlendorf, Masters and Gregory 85 .

Perhaps the greatest importance of PBG to livestock production and fire management is using patchy fires to drive grazing and vegetation patterns to overcome the forage versus fuel paradox in a fenced off landscape. In other words, when entire pastures are burned, all forage was consumed as fuel by fire and livestock have low forage availability until adequate moisture is availableReference Allred, Scasta, Hovick, Fuhlendorf and Hamilton 35 . PBG overcomes that relationship by optimizing fuel accumulation in unburned patches to increase fire intensity and mortality on woody plants or serve as a forage reserve during drought. PBG integrates fire and grazing without having to sacrifice one or the other; deferring grazing to accumulate enough fuel to burn and to woody plant invasion or grazing and not being able to burn at all.

Restoration of fire and grazing with PBG fundamentally embraces variation through space and time, a diametric opposite to the utilitarian model of uniform utilization promoted by conventional managementReference Briske, Derner, Brown, Fuhlendorf, Teague, Havstad, Gillen, Ash and Willms 146 . Embracing variation and disturbances has been suggested to increase resilience and sustainability of livestock production systemsReference Fuhlendorf, Engle, Elmore, Limb and Bidwell 147 . The value of PBG for sustaining ecosystem goods and services is clearly evident in the studies evaluated in this review and is driving its application beyond the core area of the Great Plains where the majority of research has been conducted. With fragmentation of the landscape, woody plants often encroach and alter herbaceous plant communities. Restoring fire to portions of these landscapes has the potential to mitigate many of the unintended consequences of fire suppressionReference Johnson and Matchett 88 .

Acknowledgements

The authors thank many researchers who have developed the foundation of solid research that this review stands on. This review and meta-analysis was supported by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, the Iowa State Wildlife Grants program grant #-U-2-R-1 in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (#-U-2-R-1), and the University of Wyoming Department of Ecosystem Science and Management within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

References

1 Bond, W.J. and Keeley, J.E. 2005. Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: The ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(7):387394.Google Scholar
2 Yadava, P.S. 1990. Savannas of North-east India. Journal of Biogeography 17:385394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Vinton, M.A., Hartnett, D.C., Finck, E.J., and Briggs, J.M. 1993. Interactive effects of fire, bison (Bison bison) grazing and plant community composition in tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist 129(1):1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Kramer, K., Groen, T.A., and van Wieren, S.V. 2003. The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics: An analysis using the model FORSPACE. Forest Ecology and Management 181(1):205222.Google Scholar
5 Archibald, A.S., Bond, W.J., Stock, W.D., and Fairbanks, D.H.K. 2005. Shaping the landscape: Fire-grazer interactions in an African savanna. Ecological Applications 15:96109.Google Scholar
6 Anderson, R.C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the Central Grassland of North America: Climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133(4):626647.Google Scholar
7 Murphy, B.P. and Bowman, D.M. 2007. The interdependence of fire, grass, kangaroos and Australian Aborigines: A case study from central Arnhem Land, northern Australia. Journal of Biogeography 34(2):237250.Google Scholar
8 Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Kerby, J., and Hamilton, R. 2009. Pyric herbivory: Rewilding landscapes through the recoupling of fire and grazing. Conservation Biology 23(3):588598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Fuhlendorf, S.D., Harrell, W.C., Engle, D.M., Hamilton, R.G., Davis, C.A., and Leslie, D.M. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications 16(5):17061716.Google Scholar
10 Biondini, M.E., Steuter, A.A., and Hamilton, R.G. 1999. Bison use of fire-managed remnant prairies. Journal of Range Management 52:454461.Google Scholar
11 Fuhlendorf, S.D. and Engle, D.M. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. Bioscience 51(8):625632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Hamilton, R.G. 2007. Restoring heterogeneity on the tallgrass prairie preserve: Applying the fire-grazing interaction model. In Masters, R.E. and Galley, K.E.M. (eds). 23rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and Shrubland Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. p. 163169.Google Scholar
13 Pyne, S.J. 1997. America's Fires. Forest History Society, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
14 Vermeire, L.T., Mitchell, R.B., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Gillen, R.L. 2004. Patch burning effects on grazing distribution. Rangeland Ecology and Management 57(3):248252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Fuhlendorf, S.D. and Engle, D.M. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41(4):604614.Google Scholar
16 Wiens, J.A. 2000. Ecological heterogeneity: An ontogeny of concepts and approaches. In Hutchings, M.J., Juhn, E.A., and Stewart, A.J.A. (eds). The Ecological Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity. Blackwell Science, Hoboken, NJ. p. 452.Google Scholar
17 Gurevitch, J. and Hedges, L.V. 1993. Meta-analysis: Combining the results of independent experiments. In Scheiner, S.M. and Gurevitch, J. (eds). Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Chapman & Hall, New York, USA. p. 378398.Google Scholar
18 Osenberg, C.W., Sarnelle, O., and Cooper, S.D. 1997. Effect size in ecological experiments: The application of biological models in meta-analysis. American Naturalist 150:798812.Google Scholar
19 Rosenberg, M.S., Adams, D.C. and Gurevitch, J. 1999. MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-analysis. Version 2.0. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA. p. 133.Google Scholar
20 Short, S.D. 2001. Characteristics and production costs of US cow-calf operations. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin Number 974-3.Google Scholar
21 Waterman, R.C., Geary, T.W., Paterson, J.A., and Lipsey, R.J. 2012. Early weaning in Northern Great Plains beef cattle production systems: I. Performance and reproductive response in range beef cows. Livestock Science 148(1):2635.Google Scholar
22 Duvall, V.L. and Whitaker, L.B. 1964. Rotation burning: A forage management system for longleaf pine-bluestem ranges. Journal of Range Management 17:322326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Hilmon, J.B. and Hughes, R.H. 1965. Fire and forage in the wiregrass type. Journal of Range Management 18(5):251254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Angell, R.F., Stuth, J.W., and Drawe, D.L. 1986. Diets and liveweight changes of cattle grazing fall burned gulf cordgrass. Journal of Range Management 39(3):233236.Google Scholar
25 Allred, B.W., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., and Elmore, R.D. 2011. Ungulate preference for burned patches reveals strength of fire-grazing interaction. Ecology and Evolution 1(2):132144.Google Scholar
26 McGranahan, D.A., Henderson, C.B., Hill, J.S., Raicovich, G.M., Wilson, W.N., and Smith, C.K. 2014. Patch-burning improves forage quality, creates grass-bank in old-field pasture: Results of a demonstration trial. Southeastern Naturalist 13(2):200207.Google Scholar
27 Augustine, D.J., Derner, J.D., and Milchunas, D.G. 2010. Prescribed fire, grazing, and herbaceous plant production in shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63(3):317323.Google Scholar
28 Vermeire, L.T., Crowder, J.L., and Wester, D.B. 2014. Semiarid rangeland is resilient to summer fire and postfire grazing utilization. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67:5260.Google Scholar
29 Limb, R.F., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., and Kerby, J.D. 2011a. Growing-season disturbance in tallgrass prairie: Evaluating fire and grazing on Schizachyrium scoparium . Rangeland Ecology and Management 64(1):2836.Google Scholar
30 Jamison, B. and Underwood, M. 2008. Evaluation of a grazing system for maintaining grassland integrity and improving upland bird habitat. Missouri Department of Conservation Final Project Report. Available at Web site http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044913.pdf (verified 5 December 2013).Google Scholar
31 Limb, R.F., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Weir, J.R., Elmore, R.D., and Bidwell, T.G. 2011b. Pyric–herbivory and cattle performance in grassland ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:659663.Google Scholar
32 Baumann, P. 2013. Prescribed fire can yield positive results, but may not be for everyone. Grassroots, South Dakota Grassland Coalition. 15, 1–2. Available at Web site http://www.sdgrass.org/uploads/1/8/6/5/18654664/may_2013_newsletter.pdf (verified 8 December 2013).Google Scholar
33 Winter, S.L., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Goes, M. 2014. Patch-burn grazing effects on cattle performance: Research conducted in a working landscape. Rangelands 36(3):27.Google Scholar
34 Weir, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Bidwell, T.G., Chad Cummings, D., Elmore, D., Limb, R.F., Allred, B.W., Scasta, J.D., and Winter, S.L. 2013. Patch Burning: Integrating Fire and Grazing to Promote Heterogeneity. E-998. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. p. 36.Google Scholar
35 Allred, B.W., Scasta, J.D., Hovick, T.J., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Hamilton, R.G. 2014. Spatial heterogeneity stabilizes livestock productivity in a changing climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 193:3741.Google Scholar
36 Polito, V.J., Baum, K.A., Payton, M.E., Little, S.E., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Reichard, M.V. 2013. Tick abundance and levels of infestation on cattle in response to patch burning. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66(5):545552.Google Scholar
37 Scasta, J.D., Engle, D.M., Talley, J.L., Weir, J.R., Stansberry, J.C., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Harr, R.N. 2012. Pyric-herbivory to manage horn flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on cattle. Southwestern Entomologist 37(3):325334.Google Scholar
38 Scasta, J.D., Weir, J.R., Engle, D.M., and Carlson, J.D. 2014. Combustion of cattle fecal pats ignited by prescribed fire. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67(2):229233.Google Scholar
39 Scasta, J.D. 2014. Implications of pyric-herbivory on central North American grassland ecology, management and production. Oklahoma State University Dissertation, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
40 Seip, D.R. and Bunnell, F.L. 1985. Nutrition of Stone's sheep on burned and unburned ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:397405.Google Scholar
41 Birkett, M.A., Agelopoulos, N., Jensen, K., Jespersen, J.B., Pickett, J.A., Prijs, H.J., Thomas, G., Trapman, J.J., Wadhams, L.J., and Woodcock, C.M. 2004. The role of volatile semiochemicals in mediating host location and selection by nuisance and disease-transmitting cattle flies. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 18(4):313322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42 de la Fuente, J., Almazan, C., Canales, M., Perez de la Lastra, J.M., Kocan, K.M., and Willadsen, P. 2007. A ten-year review of commercial vaccine performance for control of tick infestations on cattle. Animal Health Research Reviews 8:2328.Google Scholar
43 Jongejan, F. and Uilenberg, G. 2004. The global importance of ticks. Parasitology 129:S3S14.Google Scholar
44 Oyarzún, M.P., Quiroz, A., and Birkett, M.A. 2008. Insecticide resistance in the horn fly: Alternative control strategies. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 22:188202.Google Scholar
45 Buxton, B.A., Hinkle, N.C., and Schultz, R.D. 1985. Role of insects in the transmission of bovine leukosis virus: Potential for transmission by stable flies, horn flies, and tabanids. American Journal of Veterinary Research 46(1):123126.Google Scholar
46 O'Brien, V.A. and Reiskind, M.H. 2013. Host-seeking mosquito distribution in habitat mosaics of southern Great Plains cross-timbers. Journal of Medical Entomology 50(6):12311239.Google Scholar
47 dos Reis, V.M. 2010. Dermatosis due to plants (phytodermatosis). Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 85(4):479489.Google Scholar
48 Migaki, G., Hinson, L.E., Imes, G.D. Jr, and Garner, F.M. 1969. Cactus spines in tongues of slaughtered cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 155(9):14891492.Google Scholar
49 McMillan, Z., Scott, C.B., Taylor, C.A. Jr, and Huston, J.E. 2002. Nutritional value and intake of prickly pear by goats. Journal of Range Management 55(2):139143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Augustine, D.J. and Derner, J.D. 2015. Patch burn grazing management in semiarid grassland: Consequences for pronghorn, Plains prickly pear and wind erosion. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68(1):4047.Google Scholar
51 Provenza, F.D., Villalba, J.J., Haskell, J., MacAdam, J.W., Griggs, T.C., and Wiedmeier, R.D. 2007. The value to herbivores of plant physical and chemical diversity in time and space. Crop Science 47:382398.Google Scholar
52 Coppedge, B.R., Engle, D.M., Toepfer, C.S., and Shaw, J.H. 1998. Effects of seasonal fire, bison grazing and climatic variation on tallgrass prairie vegetation. Plant Ecology 139(2):235246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Helzer, C.J. and Steuter, A.A. 2005. Preliminary effects of patch-burn grazing on a high-diversity prairie restoration. Ecological Restoration 23(3):167171.Google Scholar
54 Cummings, D.C., Engle, D.M., and Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2007. Is altering grazing selectivity of invasive forage species with patch burning more effective than herbicide treatments? Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:253260.Google Scholar
55 Price, C.A. and Weltzin, J.F. 2003. Managing non-native plant populations through intensive community restoration in Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Restoration Ecology 11(3):351358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Palmer, B. 1999. Greedy grass ravaging the range experts say tenacious plant threatening areas. The Oklahoman. Available at Web site http://newsok.com/greedy-grass-ravaging-the-range-experts-say-tenacious-plant-threatening-areas/article/2671769 (verified 5 December 2013).Google Scholar
57 Cook, V.K. and Hickman, K.R. 2012. Integrating the fire-grazing interaction with herbicide treatments: A novel approach to controlling Lespedeza cuneata in the tallgrass prairie. In Proceedings of 97th Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting. 8 August 2012. Portland, OR.Google Scholar
58 Allred, B.W., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Monaco, T.A., and Will, R.E. 2010. Morphological and physiological traits in the success of the invasive plant Lespedeza cuneata . Biological Invasions 12(4):739749.Google Scholar
59 McDaniel, K.C., Hart, C.R., and Carroll, D.B. 1997. Broom snakeweed control with fire on New Mexico blue grama rangeland. Journal of Range Management 50:652659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60 Augustine, D.J. and Milchunas, D.G. 2009. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning of grazed shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62(1):8997.Google Scholar
61 Strong, D.J., Ganguli, A.C., and Vermeire, L.T. 2013. Fire effects on basal area, tiller production, and mortality of the C4 bunchgrass, purple threeawn. Fire Ecology 9(3):8999.Google Scholar
62 Ansley, R.J., Boutton, T.W., Mirik, M., Castellano, M.J., and Kramp, B.A. 2010. Restoration of C4 grasses with seasonal fire in a C3/C4 grassland invaded by Prosopis glandulosa, a fire-resistant shrub. Applied Vegetation Science 13(4):520530.Google Scholar
63 Briggs, J.M., Hoch, G.A., and Johnson, L.C. 2002. Assessing the rate, mechanisms, and consequences of the conversion of tallgrass prairie to Juniperus virginiana forest. Ecosystems 5:578586.Google Scholar
64 Engle, D.M., Stritzke, J.F., and Claypool, P.L. 1987. Herbage standing crop around eastern redcedar trees. Rangeland Ecology and Management 40:237239.Google Scholar
65 Limb, R.F., Engle, D.M., Alford, A.L., and Hellgren, E.C. 2010. Tallgrass prairie plant community dynamics along a canopy cover gradient of eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana L.). Rangeland Ecology and Management 63:638644.Google Scholar
66 Ansley, R.J. and Rasmussen, G.A. 2005. Managing native invasive juniper species using fire. Weed Technology 19(3):517522.Google Scholar
67 Teague, R., Borchardt, R., Ansley, J., Pinchak, B., Cox, J., Foy, J.K., and McGrann, J. 1997. Sustainable management strategies for mesquite rangeland: The Waggoner Kite Project. Rangelands 19(5):48.Google Scholar
68 Bidwell, T.G., Weir, J.R., and Engle, D.M. 2002. Eastern Redcedar Control and Management: Best Management Practices to Restore Oklahoma's Ecosystems F-2876. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service. Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
69 Kerby, J.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.M. 2007. Landscape heterogeneity and fire behavior: Scale-dependent feedback between fire and grazing processes. Landscape Ecology 22:507516.Google Scholar
70 Ansley, R.J., Pinchak, W.E., Teague, W.R., Kramp, B.A., Jones, D.L., and Barnett, K. 2010. Integrating grazing and prescribed fire restoration strategies in a mesquite savannah: II. Fire behavior and mesquite landscape cover responses. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63(3):286297.Google Scholar
71 Heisler, J.L., Briggs, J.M., Knapp, A.K., Blair, J.M., and Seery, A. 2004. Direct and indirect effects of fire on shrub density and aboveground productivity in a mesic grassland. Ecology 85:22452257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72 Teague, W.R., Duke, S.E., Waggoner, J.A., Dowhower, S.L., and Gerrard, S.A. 2008. Rangeland vegetation and soil response to summer patch fires under continuous grazing. Arid Land Research and Management 22(3):228241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73 LeBauer, D. and Treseder, K. 2008. Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89:371379.Google Scholar
74 Belasco, I.J. 1954. Comparison of urea and protein meals as nitrogen sources for rumen micro-organisms: Urea utilization and cellulose digestion. Journal of Animal Science 13:739747.Google Scholar
75 Anderson, R.H., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.M. 2006. Soil nitrogen availability in tallgrass prairie under the fire-grazing interaction. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59:625631.Google Scholar
76 Knapp, A.K. and Seastedt, T.R. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36(10):662668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77 Blair, J.M. 1997. Fire, N availability, and plant response in grasslands: A test of the transient maxima hypothesis. Ecology 78(8):23592368.Google Scholar
78 Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D., and Herbel, C.H. 1995. Range Management: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
79 Bailey, D.W. 2004. Management strategies for optimal grazing distribution and use of arid rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 82(13):147153.Google Scholar
80 Knight, K.B., Toombs, T.P., and Derner, J.D. 2011. Cross-fencing on private US rangelands: Financial costs and producer risks. Rangelands 33:4144.Google Scholar
81 Clark, P.E., Jaechoul, L., Kyungduk, K., Nielson, R.M., Johnson, D.E., Ganskopp, D.C., Chigbrow, J., Pierson, F.B., and Hardegree, S.P. 2014. Prescribed fire effects on resource selection by cattle in mesic sagebrush steppe. Part 1: Spring grazing. Journal of Arid Environments 100–101:7888.Google Scholar
82 Clark, P.E., Jaechoul, L., Kyungduk, K., Nielson, R.M., Johnson, D.E., Ganskopp, D.C., Pierson, F.B., and Hardegree, S.P. 2015. Prescribed fire effects on resource selection by cattle in mesic sagebrush steppe. Part 2: Mid-summer grazing. Journal of Arid Environments, in press. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.03.005.Google Scholar
83 Davit, C. and Alleger, M. 2008. Patch-burn grazing benefits grassland birds and cattle producers. Missouri Prairie Journal 29(1):1219.Google Scholar
84 McDonnell, M.J. 1986. Old field vegetation height and the dispersal pattern of bird-disseminated woody plants. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 113:611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85 Coppedge, B.R., Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Masters, R.E., and Gregory, M.S. 2001. Landscape cover type and pattern dynamics in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands, USA. Landscape Ecology 16(8):677690.Google Scholar
86 Stevens, B.S., Reese, K.P., Connelly, J.W., and Musil, D.D. 2012. Greater sage-grouse and fences: Does marking reduce collisions? Wildlife Society Bulletin 36(2):297303.Google Scholar
87 Scott, M.D. 1992. Buck-and-pole fence crossings by 4 ungulate species. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(2):204210.Google Scholar
88 Johnson, L.C. and Matchett, J.R. 2001. Fire and grazing regulate belowground processes in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 82(12):33773389.Google Scholar
89 Wiens, J.A. 1974. Habitat heterogeneity and avian community structure in North American grasslands. American Midland Naturalist 91(1):195213.Google Scholar
90 Winter, S.L., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Goad, C.L., Davis, C.A., Hickman, K.R., and Leslie, D.M. Jr. 2012. Restoration of the fire-grazing interaction in Artemisia filifolia shrubland. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(1):242250.Google Scholar
91 Leis, S.A., Morrison, L.W., and Debacker, M.D. 2013. Spatiotemporal variation in vegetation structure resulting from pyric-herbivory. Prairie Naturalist 45:1320.Google Scholar
92 McGranahan, D.A., Raicovich, G.M., Wilson, W.N., and Smith, C.K. 2013. Preliminary evidence that patch burn-grazing creates spatially heterogeneous habitat structure in old-field grassland. Southeastern Naturalist 12(3):655660.Google Scholar
93 McGranahan, D.A., Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Winter, S.J., Miller, J.R., and Debinski, D.M. 2012. Spatial heterogeneity across five rangelands managed with pyric-herbivory. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(4):903910.Google Scholar
94 Collins, S.L., and Smith, M.D. 2006. Scale-dependent interaction of fire and grazing on community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 87(8):20582067.Google Scholar
95 Augustine, D.J. and Derner, J.D. 2012. Disturbance regimes and mountain plover habitat in shortgrass steppe: Large herbivore grazing does not substitute for prairie dog grazing or fire. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(4):721728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96 Drewa, P.B. and Havstad, K.M. 2001. Effects of fire, grazing and the presence of shrubs on Chihuahuan desert grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments 48(4):429443.Google Scholar
97 Milchunas, D.G., Sala, O.E., and Lauenroth, W.K. 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. American Naturalist 132(1):87106.Google Scholar
98 Hiatt, E.L.I. 2014. Patch-burning in mixed grass prairie: Animal use of riparian areas and effects on plant species richness. Oklahoma State University Thesis, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
99 Allred, B.W., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Hovick, T.J., Elmore, R.D., Engle, D.M., and Joern, A. 2013. Conservation implications of native and introduced ungulates in a changing climate. Global Change Biology 19:18751883.Google Scholar
100 Vermeire, L.T., Wester, D.B., Mitchell, R.B., and Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2005. Fire and grazing effects on wind erosion, soil water content, and soil temperature. Journal of Environmental Quality 34(5):15591565.Google Scholar
101 Ozaslan, P.A., Parlak, M., Blanco-Canqui, H., Schacht, W.H., Guretzky, J.A., and Mamo, M. 2015. Patch burning: Implications on water erosion and soil properties. Journal of Environmental Quality 44(3):903909.Google Scholar
102 Engle, D.M., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Roper, A., and Leslie, D.M. Jr. 2008. Invertebrate community response to a shifting mosaic of habitat. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(1):5562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103 Doxon, E.D., Winter, S.L., Davis, C.A., and Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2011. Aboveground macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance in sand sagebrush prairie managed with the use of pyric herbivory. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64:394403.Google Scholar
104 Baum, K.A. and Sharber, W.V. 2012. Fire creates host plant patches for monarch butterflies. Biology Letters 8(6):968971.Google Scholar
105 Moranz, R.A. 2010. The effects of ecological management on tallgrass prairie butterflies and their nectar sources. Oklahoma State University Dissertation, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
106 Moranz, R.A., Debinski, D.M., McGranahan, D.A., Engle, D.M., and Miller, J.R. 2012. Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 21(11):27192746.Google Scholar
107 Debinski, D.M., Vogel, J.A., Koford, R.R., and Miller, J.R. 2007. Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing. Biological Conservation 140:7890.Google Scholar
108 Vogel, J.A., Debinski, D.M., Koford, R.R., and Miller, J.R. 2007. Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing. Biological Conservation 140(1):7890.Google Scholar
109 Walker, T.L. and Hoback, W.W. 2007. Effects of invasive eastern redcedar on capture rates of Nicrophorus americanus and other Silphidae. Environmental Entomology 36(2):297307.Google Scholar
110 Powell, A.F.L.A. 2006. Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie. Auk 123(1):183197.Google Scholar
111 Pillsbury, F.C., Miller, J.R., Debinski, D.M., and Engle, D.M. 2011. Another tool in the toolbox? Using fire and grazing to promote bird diversity in highly fragmented landscapes. Ecosphere 2(3):art28.Google Scholar
112 Coppedge, B.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Harrell, W.C., and Engle, D.M. 2008. Avian community response to vegetation and structural features in grasslands managed with fire and grazing. Biological Conservation 141(5):11961203.Google Scholar
113 Churchwell, R.T., Davis, C.A., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Engle, D.M. 2008. Effects of patch-burn management on Dickcissel nest success in a tallgrass prairie. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):15961604.Google Scholar
114 Hovick, T.J., Miller, J.R., Dinsmore, S.J., Engle, D.M., Debinski, D.M., and Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2012. Effects of fire and grazing on grasshopper sparrow nest survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):1927.Google Scholar
115 Hovick, T.J., Elmore, R.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., and Hamilton, R.G. 2014. Spatial heterogeneity increases diversity and stability in grassland bird communities. Ecological Applications 25:662672.Google Scholar
116 Hovick, T.J., Elmore, R.D., and Fuhlendorf, S.D. 2014. Structural heterogeneity increases diversity of non-breeding grassland birds. Ecosphere 5(5):art62.Google Scholar
117 Hernández, F. and Guthery, F.S. 2012. Beef, Brush, and Bobwhites: Quail Management in Cattle Country. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
118 Bidwell, T.G., Masters, R.E., Sams, M., and Tully, S. 2004. Bobwhite Quail Habitat Evaluation and Management Guide E-904. Oklahoma State University, Division of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
119 Robbins, M.B., Peterson, A.T., and Ortega-Huerta, M.A. 2002. Major negative impacts of early intensive cattle stocking on tallgrass prairies: The case of the greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). North American Birds 56:239244.Google Scholar
120 McNew, L.B., Preby, T.J., and Sandercock, B.K. 2012. Effects of rangeland management on the site occupancy dynamics of prairie-chickens in a protected prairie preserve. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:3847.Google Scholar
121 Griebel, R., Winter, S.L., and Steuter, A. 1998. Grassland birds and habitat structure in sandhills prairie managed using cattle or bison plus fire. Great Plains Research 8:255268.Google Scholar
122 Fuhlendorf, S.D., Townsend, D.E., Elmore, R.D., and Engle, D.M. 2010. Pyric-herbivory to promote rangeland heterogeneity: Evidence from small mammal communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63(6):670678.Google Scholar
123 Augustine, D.J., Cully, J.F. Jr, and Johnson, T.L. 2007. Influence of fire on black-tailed prairie dog colony expansion in shortgrass steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60(5):538542.Google Scholar
124 Breland, A. 2010. Black-tailed prairie dog and large ungulate response to fire on mixed-grass prairie. Oklahoma State University Thesis, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
125 Meek, M.G., Cooper, S.M., Owens, M.K., Cooper, R.M., and Wappel, A.L. 2008. White-tailed deer distribution in response to patch burning on rangeland. Journal of Arid Environments 72(11):20262033.Google Scholar
126 Dyke, F. and Darragh, J.A. 2007. Response of elk to changes in plant production and nutrition following prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(1):2329.Google Scholar
127 Hobbs, N.T. and Spowart, R.A. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrition of mountain sheep and mule deer during winter and spring. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):551560.Google Scholar
128 Pearson, S.M., Turner, M.G., Wallace, L.L., and Romme, W.H. 1995. Winter habitat use by large ungulates following fire in northern Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Applications 5(3):744755.Google Scholar
129 Bleich, V.C., Johnson, H.E., Holl, S.A., Konde, L., Torres, S.G., and Krausman, P.R. 2008. Fire history in a chaparral ecosystem: Implications for conservation of a native ungulate. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(6):571579.Google Scholar
130 Holl, S.A., Bleich, V.C., Callenberger, B.W., and Bahro, B. 2012. Simulated effects of two fire regimes on bighorn sheep: The San Gabriel Mountains, California, USA. Fire Ecology 8(3):88103.Google Scholar
131 Augustine, D.J. and Derner, J.D. 2014. Controls over the strength and timing of fire–grazer interactions in a semi-arid rangeland. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:242250.Google Scholar
132 Hovick, T.J., Elmore, R.D., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Dahlgren, D.K. 2015. Weather constrains the influence of fire and grazing on nesting greater prairie-chickens. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68(2):186193.Google Scholar
133 Hudak, A.T., Fairbanks, D.H., and Brockett, B.H. 2004. Trends in fire patterns in a southern African savanna under alternative land use practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 101:307325.Google Scholar
134 Yassir, I., Van der Kamp, J., and Buurman, P. 2010. Secondary succession after fire in Imperata grasslands of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 137:172182.Google Scholar
135 Nayak, R.R., Vaidyanathan, S., and Krishnaswamy, J. 2014. Fire and grazing modify grass community response to environmental determinants in savannas: Implications for sustainable use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 185:197207.Google Scholar
136 Beck, J.L., Klein, J.G., Wright, J., and Wolfley, K.P. 2011. Potential and pitfalls of prescribed burning big sagebrush habitat to enhance nesting and early brood-rearing habitats for greater sage-grouse. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues 16(1):5.Google Scholar
137 Shindler, B., Gordon, R., Brunson, M.W., and Olsen, C. 2011. Public perceptions of sagebrush ecosystem management in the Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64(4):335343.Google Scholar
138 Franzluebbers, A.J., Stuedemann, J.A., and Seman, D.H. 2013. Stocker performance and production in mixed tall fescue–bermudagrass pastures of the Southern Piedmont USA. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28(2):160172.Google Scholar
139 Wiltshire, K., Delate, K., Wiedenhoeft, M., and Flora, J. 2011. Incorporating native plants into multifunctional prairie pastures for organic cow–calf operations. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26(2):114126.Google Scholar
140 Duru, M., Jouany, C., Le Roux, X., Navas, M.L., and Cruz, P. 2013. From a conceptual framework to an operational approach for managing grassland functional diversity to obtain targeted ecosystem services: Case studies from French mountains. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29(3):116.Google Scholar
141 Asbjornsen, H., Hernandez-Santana, V., Liebman, M., Bayala, J., Chen, J., Helmers, M., Ong, C.K., and Schulte, L.A. 2014. Targeting perennial vegetation in agricultural landscapes for enhancing ecosystem services. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29(2):101125.Google Scholar
142 Derner, J.D., Lauenroth, W.K., Stapp, P., and Augustine, D.J. 2009. Livestock as ecosystem engineers for grassland bird habitat in the Western Great Plains of North America. Rangeland Ecology and Management 62(2):111118.Google Scholar
143 Scasta, J.D., Engle, D.M., Talley, J.L., Weir, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., and Debinski, D.M. 2015. Drought influences control of parasitic flies of cattle on pastures managed with patch-burn grazing. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68(3):290297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
144 Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328337.Google Scholar
145 Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L., Baker, S.A., Ansley, R.J., Kreuter, U.P., Conover, D.M., and Waggoner, J.A. 2010. Soil and herbaceous plant responses to summer patch burns under continuous and rotational grazing. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 137(1):113123.Google Scholar
146 Briske, D.D., Derner, J.D., Brown, J.R., Fuhlendorf, S.D., Teague, W.R., Havstad, K.M., Gillen, R.L., Ash, A.J., and Willms, W.D. 2008. Rotational grazing on rangelands: Reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(1):317.Google Scholar
147 Fuhlendorf, S.D., Engle, D.M., Elmore, R.D., Limb, R.F., and Bidwell, T.G. 2012. Conservation of pattern and process: Developing an alternative paradigm of rangeland management. Rangeland Ecology and Management 65(6):579589.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Functional diagram of pyric-herbivory using a 3 yr fire return interval (it does not have to be 3 yr and would likely to be variable depending on site productivity and vegetation). Note the movement of fire and grazing through space and time as cattle follow fire to the most recently burned patches.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Study locations assessing the interaction of fire and grazing in North America.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Patch-burn grazing (PBG) effect sizes along precipitation gradients for (A) calf weaning weights versus burning entire pastures every third year, (B) yearling cattle weight gains versus burning entire pastures every third year or burning annually, and (C) yearling cattle weight gains versus not burning at all.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Crude protein comparison along the precipitation gradient for burned and unburned sites. (A) Presents the mean and (B) presents the effect size.

Figure 4

Table 1. Summary of potential benefits of patch-burn grazing (PBG) for animal production.

Figure 5

Table 2. Summary of potential ecological benefits associated with the interaction of fire and grazing applied as patch-burn grazing (PBG).