English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Prescribed burning is being used in the Contz.sauga River Watershed iit southeastern Tennessee crnd northerit Georgia b.y National Forest inunugers to restore degraded pineloak comntunities. The /mrpose ($these burizs is to restore .shortlec~fl?ine (Pinus echinata Miller)/mhed-oak forests with more diverse under.stories, which include izutive bluestem grasses (Andropogon gyrans Ashp and Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash). Although burning might be an effective tool jbr restoring these .stcrncls to a sltortlec$~~ine/mixed-ouWblue.stem grass community type, it is not known whether these restoration burns will have rr negrrtive impact on water quality. Six subwater.sheds (similar in vegetation, soil type, stremm .size ond locution, und disturbance history) were located within the Conusaugu River Watershed. Four c?f the sites were burned in Mar. 2001, and two sites were designated as controls. To evaluate initial effects qf />rescribed burning on water quality, we measured soil solution and streamwater nutrient concentrations aizd streamwater sediment concentration (TSS; total suspended solic1.s) weekly over a 10-month period Consistent with goals of the land managers, all the prescrihed,fires resulted in low- to modr~rate-intensity and low-severity fires. Soil solution and streuinwater NOT-N and NH,'-N did not increase after burning on any of the .sites. We found no differences itz TSS between burn and control .streams in any ofthe sample periods. Iiz addition, we fi~uizd no cktec~table diferences between control and burned sites for concentrations of Poii-, SO,', ca2+, ~g", K+, or pH in soil solution or slreanzwater. Thus, these prescribed restoreltion ,fires did not have a signiJicant effect on soil solution and stream chemistry or stream sediment (TSS) concentrcrtiorzs. Our resultLs .suggest that low-inter~.sity, low-severity ,fires, such us those in this .stud\/, could be used as a tool to restore vegetation structure and compo.sitiotz in these rnixecl pine-hcrrdwood eco.systems without negatively impacting water qualify. South. J. Appl. For. 29(1):5-15.

Initial Effects of Prescribed Fire on Quality of Soil Solution and Streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains