Fire and the Origin of Oak Stands

The most plausible hypothesis to explain how oaks were able to dominate the landscape for thousands of years before European settlement is fire - both naturally occurring as well as those set by the native American population. It is a difficult issue because fire would probably have had to occur more than once during the lifespan of an oak stand to prevent succession to other species, particularly if the fires were of low or moderate intensity. Yet, the available evidence suggests that Indian populations were relatively small and lightning fires relatively uncommon (Schroeder and Buck 1970; Barden and Woods 1973; Lorimer 1993).

Despite some objections (Russell, 1983), the hypothesis that fire was the major factor in accounting for the dominance of oak forests on mesic sites seems the most plausible. Oak can maintain itself reasonably well on dry sites and moderately dry sites throughout eastern North America. On mesic sites, sizable areas of the central hardwood region are known to have been covered by non-oak forest in presettlement times. Beech-maple forest, mixed with hemlock in some areas, covered large areas of New York, northern and central Pennsylvania, and northern Ohio. Mixed-mesophytic forest also occupied many of the good sites in West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and central Tennessee (Sargent 1884; Braun 1950; Kuchler 1964; Whitney 1990). In the oak savanna regions of the Midwest, the role of fire is already established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the areas in which the frequency and impact of fire are most in question are the eastern Piedmont, the Ridge and Valley province, and the southern Appalachian Mountains. The following is a brief overview of the available evidence in those areas and a discussion of problems that remain (Lorimer 1993).

There are indeed many references by early travelers and colonists to the widespread practice of woods burning by Indians. In fact, few writers of the time who included any significant account of the vegetation failed to mention the practice or its effects on the forest. A number of these accounts, but by no means all, were reviewed by Maxwell (1910), Day (1953), and Lorimer (1985). The following description of coastal Massachusetts by Wood (1634) has many of the elements that occur frequently in these accounts (Lorimer 1993):

"There is no underwood saving in swamps and low grounds that are wet . . . for it being the custome of the Indians to burne the wood in November, when the grass is withered, and the leaves dried, it consumes all the underwood, and rubbish, which otherwise would over grow the Countrey, making it unpassable, and spoyle their much affected hunting; so that by this meanes in those places where the Indians inhabit, there is scarce a bush or bramble, or any cumbersome underwood to bee seene in the more champion ground. . . "

Morton (1632) implied that the practice was so widespread in coastal Massachusetts that trees not scorched or damaged by fire were difficult to find:

"So that hee that will looke to finde large trees, and good tymber . . . must seeke for them, (as I and others have done) in the lower grounds where the grounds are wett when the Country is fired ... for the Salvages by this Custome of theirs, have spoiled all the rest: for this Custome hath bin continued from the beginninge. . .." 

Since the fires were often set or accidentally started during periods of dry weather, and usually no attempt was made to control them, they could spread over large areas. Loskiel (1794) noted that "these fires run on for many miles," and Morton (1632) described the typical fire as "burning continually night and day, until a shower of rain falls to quench it." In New York, Van der Donck (1656) described the woods burning as a "yearly custom" and that some fires were quite intense, "for it frequently spreads and rages with such violence, that it is awful to behold" (Lorimer 1993).

Russell (1983) has challenged the idea of widespread intentional burning by Indians. She notes, with some justification, that early writers did not necessarily imply widespread burning of the landscape, but only "in those places where the Indians inhabit" (Wood 1634) and "in all places where they come" (Morton 1632). She also feels that the writers may have been biased, and exaggerated the openness of the woods in order to attract more colonists. However, the descriptions of fire use and open woods with little undergrowth are consistent among many groups of people including priests and missionaries (Loskiel 1794; Rights 1947), surveyors (Lindestrom 1656; Byrd 1728), botanists (Bartram 1791), early historians (Norris 1890, Logan 1859), and early explorers and travelers with no specific land claims in the areas described (Smith 1616; Lawson 1709; Grant 1946). In Massachusetts, independent evidence can be found which supports the accounts of Indian burning related by Morton and Wood. Colonial records of Massachusetts indicate that in 1677 the court was "informed that great damage hath happened to several persons in the outskirt plantations by Indians kindling fires in the woods in the latter part of the year," and passed a law limiting the times during which Indians could set fires (Hough 1882; Lorimer 1993).

The diary of Col. William Byrd is therefore of particular interest because in 1728 he was involved in surveying the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina, and was therefore confined to a compass line. The frequent references to fire and fire effects do give the impression that fire was a major factor on the landscape in that region. Byrd made several references to extensive thickets of saplings that appeared to be of fire origin, as when he reported that they "Scuffled thro a mighty thicket, at least three miles long. The whole was one continued tract of rich high land, the woods whereof had been burnt not long before. It was then overgrown with Saplings of Oak, Hiccory, and Locust . . .." When the Byrd party reached the mountains, near a major Indian trail, they encountered a "great fire" which Byrd attributed to Indians. Most importantly, Byrd made general remarks about fire frequency, stating that "the woods are not there burnt every year, as they generally are amongst the Inhabitants. But the dead Leaves and trash of many years are heapt up together, which being at length kindled by the Indians that happen to pass that way, furnishing fewel for a conflagration that carries all before it." The contrast in fire regimes between these mountain forests and areas more densely settled by Indians, which Byrd considered to be subject to widespread burning each year, provides independent confirmation of accounts elsewhere by Morton (1632), Wood (1634) and others (Lorimer 1993).

In summary, depending on locale, the history of uncontrolled burning of the forests in Central and Eastern States ended less than a century ago (the Missouri Ozarks) to several hundred years ago (New England). Before that period, forests throughout the region were frequently burned by Native Americans (Beilmann and Brenner 1951; Cooper 1961; Curtis 1959; Day 1953). In southeastern Minnesota, recurring fires shaped the landscape for several thousand years before the arrival of Europeans (Grimn 1984). Although not every acre burned every year, the historical and scientific evidence indicates that the frequency, intensity, and extent of those fires had an enormous impact on the regions ecology (Abrams 1992; Johnson, 1993a).