University of California

Clipping chamise reduces brush fire hazard


Theodore E. Adams
Peter B. Sands

Authors Affiliations

T.E. Adams is Extension Wildlands Specialist Emeritus, respectively, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis; P.B. Sands is former Staff Research Associate (retired), respectively, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 53(3):25-29. DOI:10.3733/ca.v053n03p25. May 1999.

PDF of full article, Cite this article


Wildfire is a particular concern where housing and business development encroaches on highly flammable brushlands. In these areas, it may be risky to use prescribed fire to control biomass and reduce the fuel for a fire. Chamise chaparral, the most common of the brush types, was clipped to study how biomass removal affects flammability and fire hazard. The results suggest that infrequent clipping of chamise to a height of 12 inches may adequately reduce fuel volume and encourage new growth high in moisture, which lowers the flammability of vegetation.


Adams TE, Graves WL. Clipping chaparral as a brush-management technique. Cal Ag. 1983. 37(3,4):12-4.

Biswell HH, Kozlowski TT, Ahlgren CE. Effects of fire on chaparral. Fire and Ecosystems.. 1974. New York: Academic Press. p. 321-64.

Bory G, Herbert G, Macle N, Clair-Maczulatys D. Physiological consequences of architectural pruning on trees. In: The tree in its various states. Proc. 2nd European Congress in Arboriculture. Institut pour le Developpement Forestier, Paris, France 1995. pp.111-9.

California Resources Agency. Recommendations on reducing the risk of wild-land fires and flooding in California. Report of the Governor's Task Force on Chaparral Fire and Flood Risk Management. Sacramento, CA: Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 1981. p.46+viii.

Franklin S., Slaughter R. Fuel management. California's I-Zone—Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention & Mitigation.. 1996. Sacramento, CA: CFESTES bookstore, 7171 Bowling Dr. p. 186-93.

Green LR. Burning by prescription in chaparral. USDA, Forest Service Gen Tech Rpt PSW-51. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp Sta 1981. p.36.

Greenlee J, Sapsis D. Prefire effectiveness in fire management: A summary and review of state-of-knowledge. Wildland Fire Management Series, Vol. 2. 1996. Fairfield, WA: International Assoc. of Wildland Fire. 78p.

Hanes TL, Barbour MG, Major J. California chaparral. Terrestrial Vegetation of California.. 1977. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 417-69.

Jones MB, Laude HM. Relationships between sprouting in chamise and the physiological condition of the plant. J Range Manage. 1960. 13:210-4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3894955

Laude HM, Jones MB, Moon WE. Annual variability in indicators of sprouting potential in chamise. J Range Manage. 1961. 14:323-6. https://doi.org/10.2307/3895079

Lemp C. How Can We Live With Wildland Fire?. Davis, CA: UC Dept. of Human and Community Development 1998. p.41.

Parfit M. The essential element of fire. Natl Geographic. 1996. 190(3):117-39.

Riley JG, Moini S, Miles JA. An engineering study of the harvesting and densification of chaparral for fuel. Davis, CA: UC Dept of Agric Engineering 1980. p.94.

Sampson AW, Jespersen BS. California range brushlands and browse plants. Publ 4010. Oakland, CA: UC DANR Communications Services, 6701 San Pablo Ave 1963. p.162.

Yuba Watershed and Fire Safe Council. Yuba Watershed Protection/Restoration Project Application. Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act (Proposition 204); Delta Tributary Watershed Program. State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 1998.

Adams T, Sands P. 1999. Clipping chamise reduces brush fire hazard. Hilgardia 53(3):25-29. DOI:10.3733/ca.v053n03p25
Webmaster Email: wsuckow@ucanr.edu