Very high quality or "Grade A" prairie is rare, beautiful, and a major inspirer of biodiversity conservation. Once you've come it know it, the rich complexity of shapes, colors, and animal-plant interactions takes your breath away. But in degraded form, it does not look like much.
In the photo below (from about 1980) Prof. Robert Betz shows me a part of the great Gensburg-Markham Prairie, before restoration in this area had begun.
This is a prairie? Yes, it is. And the entire site – one of the finest prairies in the state – was also this badly degraded by brush when Betz started restoring it.
Q: What makes this tangle, ecologically, a prairie?
A: All those woody plants are short-term invaders; their shade has not yet killed off most of the ancient biota here, which is comprised of hundreds of species of prairie grasses and wildflowers, as well as thousands of species of animals (bees, snakes, voles, beetles, fungi, symbiotic bacteria, and all) that represent a rare heritage of biodiversity.
Many people, including some scientists, told Betz that, if he cared about nature, it would be wrong to cut all those trees. When he started there in 1972, few people understood what either prairies or nature were. He patiently educated us.
As Betz and colleagues cleared the brush, rich prairie bloomed again, at first a few acres, then scores, then hundreds. This photo shows restored, original Gensburg-Markham Prairie in July. |
The next two photos show somewhat clearly something that's usually hard to see. They show the same spot in Somme Prairie from either side of the dividing line between “Grade A” and “Grade B” prairie.
In the first photo, looking east, the Grade B ("high quality") prairie is in the foreground. You can easily see, just a few feet back, where the Grade A ("very high quality") starts, abruptly. A fence once stood there, long ago, when farms stretched to the horizon in all directions. Horses or cows had grazed the now-Grade B side of the fence, enough to reduce its quality somewhat. But it still has some relatively conservative species including hoary puccoon, violet wood sorrel, yellow stargrass, prairie violet, alumroot, two-flowered Cynthia, and many more. Thus, it was identified as Grade B prairie.
In the next photo, I’ve walked across the old fence line into the Grade A prairie, turned around, now facing west, and photographed the same area, from the opposite direction. Now Grade A is in the foreground, and the Grade B in the rear. The plants that stand out visually in the foreground are prairie dock, gayfeather, and rattlesnake master. But the real treasure of the Grade A is the list of highly conservative species that survived here but not in the Grade B. They included prairie gentian, cream false indigo, leadplant, prairie coreopsis, prairie lily, Kalm's brome, edible valerian, Junegrass, prairie Indian plantain, oval milkweed, alumroot, and many many more.
The old fence, once along a property line between farms, is long gone. But the impacts of the grazing on the other side of that fence line were still dramatically apparent when this photo was taken, in the 1980s. (Today, after decades of restoration, the contrast is not so dramatic.)
Decades ago, the Forest Preserve District acquired the parcel with the Grade A prairie. They planted trees on it (as you can see, in the first of the two photos above), but some of the precious prairie survived.
In the photo below, the land on the west side of the fence was acquired by the U.S. military in Cold War 1960, and they built a radar installation to protect us from Soviet missiles.
For a bonus photo of the Grade A area of Somme Prairie in the 1980s, recovering after a few restorative burns, see below:
For another perspective on these questions, check out this adventure story that comes with plant lists, scientific names, and discussions of the rare species that indicate prairie quality.
For photos of Somme Prairie today and some restoration details, click here.
How much difference does prairie quality make?
No one can answer this question with certainty. But much of the genetic richness created by millions of years of evolution (species and genetic alleles of great potential significance to our unique Planet of Life) may reside mostly or only in high-quality remnants. We who work to save them do so at some level because we love nature and think it ethically unconscionable for our hubristic species to utterly wipe out the last of what took millions of years to evolve. But there are practical reasons too.
We know for sure that from time to time a major food crop is threatened by some disease which, like the Irish potato famine, could result in the starvation of millions. We know for sure that agronomists go to nature to find genes in wild relatives that can rescue such crops. We also know that biodiversity is a major sources of genes for improved nutrition, medicines, industrial solvents, lubricants, catalysts, etc. When they're gone, our planet and posterity are diminished.
But also, consider this thought experiment: There have been times on Earth when most species have rapidly gone extinct because a key balance was lost. For example, the oceans turned toxic and stopped producing oxygen. Or ice or drought covered most of the planet. We now recklessly tempt fate with planetary manipulations. Imagine a time when a global ecological catastrophe is developing and scientists discover that a solution would be to restore a billion acres of temperate grassland. But it would only work if certain bacteria or algae or nematodes were part of the mix. If those species only survived in Grade A Nature Preserves, we'd use them to rescue the planet. If they survived nowhere, we would have lost that option.
I'm aware that the "what ifs" above are speculative bordering on the ridiculous. Yet there are a thousand other scenarios that might depend on saving at least some nature. We're barely starting to understand what makes Earth work for life as we know it. Considering all the resources and power that our species now has, biodiversity conservation requires only a miniscule investment. We should do it. And be happy about it.
Endnote 1
Common Name | CC | Scientific name | Scientific name |
cream wild indigo | 10 | Baptisia leucophaea | Baptisia leucophaea |
scarlet painted-cup | 10 | Castilleja coccinea | Castilleja coccinea |
white prairie clover | 10 | Dalea candida | Petalostemum candidum |
prairie gentian | 10 | Gentiana puberulenta | Gentiana puberulenta |
prairie white-fringed orchid | 10 | Platanthera leucophaea | Habenaria leucophaea |
prairie lily | 10 | Lilium philadelphicum | Lilium philadelphicum |
prairie panic grass | 10 | Dichanthelium leibergii | Panicum leibergii |
prairie dropseed | 10 | Sporobolus heterolepis | Sporobolus heterolepis |
heart-leaved Alexanders | 10 | Zizia aptera | Zizia aptera |
In a Grade A prairie, most of the above species will be plentiful, along with many others that have CCs of 9 and 8.
In Grade B prairie, there may be some of the above species surviving, but only here and there in most cases, and with many of them missing entirely.
In Grade C prairie, species in the 8, 9,and 10 range will be few and far between, if any occur.
Scientific Name | CC | Common Name |
Amorpha canescens | 9 | Lead plant |
Asclepias sullivantii | 8 | Prairie milkweed |
Aster azureus | 8 | Sky-blue aster |
Aster laevis | 9 | Smooth blue aster |
Baptisia leucophaea | 10 | Cream wild indigo |
Bromus kalmii | 10 | Prairie brome |
Carex bicknellii | 10 | Prairie oval sedge |
Carex meadii | 9 | Mead’s stiff sedge |
Castilleja coccinea | 10 | Indian paintbrush |
Eryngium yuccifolium | 9 | Rattlesnake master |
Gentiana puberulenta | 10 | Prairie gentian |
Platanthera leucophaea | 10 | Prairie white-fringed orchid |
Heuchera richardsonii | 8 | Prairie alum root |
Hypoxis hirsuta | 9 | Yellow star grass |
Lilium philadelphicum | 10 | Prairie lily |
Lithospermum canescens | 8 | Hoary puccoon |
Oxalis violacea | 9 | Violet wood sorrel |
Panicum leibergii | 10 | Prairie panic grass |
Pedicularis canadensis | 9 | Prairie betony |
Petalostemum candidum | 9 | White prairie clover |
Petalostemum purpureum | 9 | Purple prairie clover |
Potentilla arguta | 9 | Prairie cinquefoil |
Phlox glaberrima | 8 | Smooth phlox |
Sporobolus heterolepis | 10 | Prairie dropseed |
Viola pedatifida | 9 | Prairie violet |
Zizia aptera | 10 | Heart-leaved Alexanders |
For additional details and discussion, see that "adventure story, which comes with plant lists".
For conservation purposes, the working hypothesis is that Grade A prairie will also have the best surviving associations of the (poorly known) species of bacteria, fungi, protists, pollinators, etc. that are interdependent with the various species of prairie plants and animals. However, work by Ron Panzer has shown that some rare insect species may survive better on larger, somewhat-degraded sites than on the much smaller Grade A sites, which may be too small to sustain their populations.
References
Acknowledgements
Much of the early knowledge of prairie quality (and remnant restoration techniques) came from the wise and visionary Dr. Robert F. Betz.
The restored Markham photo is by Michael Jeffords and Susan Post.
I don't know where the radar installation photo came from, possibly Northbrook Historical society? I just had it in my files.
Thanks to Christos Economou and Eriko Kojima for many helpful edits.
Yes, we should preserve the last scraps of nature that survive. Not because we might be able to find a use for it in the future, but rather because it is a marvel of the universe that is worth preserving. High-quality tall grass prairie is a true wonder.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the “Ancient Earth” series on PBS Nova, your thought experiment is appealing. Life returned from past mass extinctions because some species adapted enough to survive in specialized refugia. But with the current scale of worldwide habitat loss, especially disruption of migration corridors, it seems just as likely those adaptations may not be enough in the future & life could be gone forever. So diverse, geographically widespread refugia increases the odds that life will have an escape hatch. I like thinking this way because instead of internalizing the state of nature as a whole & feeling somewhat helpless, I’m motivated to focus on making the sites I care about as healthy as possible.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/series/ancient-earth/
Gary Birch, the steward of Smith-Reiner Drumlin Prairie (a fine prairie east of Madison) in the context of reflecting on why it's worth doing, said, "...and it's fun!" I agree wholeheartedly.
DeleteAs sites like SNP continue to improve, and the conservative species indicative of Grade A prairie spread, might it be desirable and feasible to begin to transplant sods of intact roots/fungi/insects to Grade B and C sites to speed their recovery? And raise the ceiling of what may be possible on these lower than Grade A sites. Related "experiments" have been at least partially successful -- e.g., the transplant of a dry hill prairie that was being destroyed to Bluff Springs Fen.
ReplyDeleteDennis, you ask a very hard question. Digging out a chunk of protected Grade A prairie? The thought sends chills down my spine, and they're not the good kind of chills. On the other hand, if Grade A prairie is otherwise being destroyed, if there's no other alternative, yes, move it to a protected site that could benefit. Still, I wish someone were researching such. Does it actually work, or would the biota of the little transplant be overwhelmed by the less conservative biota all around it?
DeleteI can report on two minor experiments along those lines. The first was a success of sorts. Citizens for Conservation once rescued puccoon plants from a high-quality prairie that was being destroyed. Years later, Tom Vanderpoel noticed that every one of those transplants was then the center of a ten-foot-diameter patch of Mead's sedge. This rare rhizomatous sedge had been in every clump of soil that had come with the puccoons, and it was then spreading throughout the restored prairie.
The second was apparently not successful in this regard. We dug prairie ladyslippers from a site being destroyed and planted them in Grade C prairie, hoping for the best. We watched those areas carefully. The ladyslippers themselves survived in many cases, but no indications of other biodiversity restoration spread from them. That is, we could observe nothing. A shovel full of soil has hundreds of species of bacteria, algae, fungi, and other hard-to-study biota. Perhaps some of them helped restore biodiversity to the site? Perhaps we introduced malignant alien species? It would be great if such questions could be studied well.
A study is currently in progress to determine if adding mycorrhizal fungi to plant plugs will help in the establishment of “hard-to-establish” prairie plants.
DeleteReb Bryant, PhD candidate, The University of Kansas. “Testing the effect of native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on prairie restoration success at Nachusa Grasslands.” This grant will conclude the Friends’ support of a three-year project designed to study the question of whether or not the inoculation of specific native arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) into the soil of greenhouse grown plants can facilitate the plant abundance of “hard-to-establish” plant species in prairie restorations. If successful, this work may provide a “library” of AMF cultures that can be used to increase biodiversity in future restorations.
I am not against moving plugs of soil from high-quality prairie to restoration areas to get “hard-to-establish” species to grow. However, there must be a net gain. The plants moved must spread. This is how people have gotten False Toad Flax established in restorations. Mead’s sedge and Hoary Puccoon would not make my list of species that would require transplanting. I have grown both from seed and find them easy. The Chicago Botanic Garden may not be able to grow them, but that is because they try too hard in greenhouses. Left in a flat outside, that gets watered, both Hoary Puccoon and Mead’s sedge grow just fine. I’ve given both these species to people working on ecological restorations, so they have starts they can use to expand. I should do more of this work but have instead been focusing on difficult to control invasive species.
DeleteThe prairie lady’s slipper orchids tend to grow in well-developed soil. Although sometimes they grow in nearly pure marl. I grow other lady’s slipper species (not C. acaule) in a mix of half to a quarter part compost (depending on species) with the remainder being perlite (for aeration) and coir (aeration and water retention). The lady’s slipper orchids grow well in this mixture.
DeleteThe difficult to obtain component is the compost. I compost all my family’s fruit and vegetable scraps, paper towels, all mixed with dead stems from my gardens. Each year I get about four cubic feet of compost from all the waste generated throughout the year. For a large input of organic material, only a small amount becomes compost. My compost bin is about 50 cubic feet and I fill it up each year. However, an even larger volume goes into making my four cubic feet of finished compost since the material is decomposing as I add it.
Compost is available commercially, but I prefer to make my own. The commercial compost is grinded, so it decomposes faster. All the glass and plastic garbage are also grinded up into small pieces making them difficult to remove.
When I pile deciduous tree leaves to decompose the soil also is only improved slowly. I’ve piled chopped up deciduous tree leaves in a garden each fall about eight inches high and a decade later the soil in this garden is only about an inch higher than the surrounding lawn.
From the above number it is easy to see that even 10 inches of prairie soil will take a very long time to form.
Marl likewise takes a long time to form. Marl accumulates as Chara uses carbon dioxide in water to photosynthesis. It takes many years for marl to build.
Grade A prairie has been developing since before human civilization. It is not an easy thing to restore once damaged or destroyed. To my knowledge, no one has yet been able to completely reverse damage once it has been done.
Delete
DeleteThe older planted prairies at Mounds View Grassland in WI have recovered a lot of their old growth character over a couple decades, which is miraculous considering the time scale of old growth prairie. Most of the species above co-mingle in abundance there. I think there is something to recovering certain soil biotic and abiotic properties (whether its microbial communities more directly or simply slowing down nutrient cycling and reducing nutrient availability). The setting is decades-old brome CRP, which might serve as an incubator for some of those properties. Then, treating it like prairie but with a multi-year effort to sow a rich mixture including the most conservative species over a backdrop of annual dormant (very early spring) burning (begun a couple/few years prior to beginning seed addition) to establish and maintain thatch-free conditions and initially reduce the vigor of brome (annual early spring burning will do this...doesn't have to be late). Prairie seems to be able to stitch itself back together pretty well in that setting. There, young plantings flush early with stiff gentian, cream gentian, and wood betony. If you take a step back and consider what is going on there, it's perhaps not too dissimilar from the very long term process of ecesis that led to the development of incredibly complex and interwoven prairie sods, but much more intense in terms of facilitated dispersal, maybe burning (if one doesn't think it was so frequent). Improvement in the sense of seedlings establishing and filling in the prairie quilt largely happens when dormant burning is happening (many species' germination and emergence has already occurred by the first week of April), so more means faster.
I do not doubt fire, to burn off dead stems and leaves (not extremely intense fire as occurs when burning brush piles), is an important component to soil development. The sedge meadow in my backyard (that I burn) has not developed a deep organic layer in the decade plus since I planted it. A deep organic layer will take much longer to develop than the amount of time I will live. However, the soil in this burned sedge meadow is much darker than the immediately adjacent lawn (which has cuttings mulched back into it). Even after a little over a decade, the soil on one side of the line are noticeably different than adjacent soil on the other side.
DeleteThe Mounds View Grassland complex is interesting from a soil standpoint, but for another reason than Mounds View itself. When the creek bottom at Shea Prairie was restored, the thick layer of smothering silt (eroded from upland farms) was removed with heavy equipment. The areas where the silt was removed down to the organic layer have responded spectacularly to prairie reconstruction. The areas still smothered in silt have not responded well at all.
Here is something for Mr. Dreher and Mr. Carter to consider. This product is for agriculture and lawns. However, I do not see why the same thing could not be done for prairie. This would be a way of introducing some of the microorganisms that are missing in prairie reconstructions (without transplanting chunks of it). It might help, or might not, but we will not know until someone tries doing it.
Deletehttps://joegardener.com/podcast/how-soil-microbes-make-good-soil-great/
People are researching adding microbia in prairie reconstruction settings, and there is evidence for some positive effects...whether they are meaningful / substantial enough to justify the effort is a question. Extremely good results have been had without any microbial additions, and it's tough to say whether those would have been served by doing so, because the approaches to prairie reconstruction for the sake of research are often not the best executed from a reconstruction practice standpoint. Thinking about Mounds View, maybe we just need to be more patient and maybe maybe allow some properties of sites to recover more passively before we invest in trying to make them look like old growth again. More broadly, the majority of projects either lack adequate and sustained effort or use unsound methods, and microbial addition or not, we're not going to overcome that without fixing some other things.
DeleteMound’s View is a special place. There are other special places where restoration is remarkable.
DeleteIn contrast, there are prairie reconstructions that despite beginning with diverse seed mixes (and receiving sustained efforts) are tending to become more and more grass dominated over time. Not only tall grasses, but even little bluestem can form a near monoculture.
This fall, I walked through an area that was full of Seneca Snakeroot about a decade ago. On this walk, I did not see one Seneca Snakeroot plant. Although, Asteraceae were diverse (but small) and Spiranthes were still present. I wonder what happened to the Seneca Snakeroot. Was the location just not good habitat for it. Did the little bluestem crowd out the Seneca Snakeroot because soil microbes were not present to keep the little bluestem from dominating.
It is not only locally that grass dominance has been observed. Land managers in other areas have reported grass dominance problems. The prairie reconstruction where the Seneca Snakeroot disappeared was begun 34 years ago. Time might solve some problems, like soil aggregation, low soil organic matter, etc. However, if important microorganisms are missing, they may never show up without help. We sow seeds because they would never be dispersed into areas where prairie is being reconstructed without our help. Microorganisms might be even more dispersal limited.
I look forward to additional results of what researchers find regarding adding microorganisms to prairie reconstructions.
Well, little bluestem can easily bury the lower statured, early species in thatch unless the site is extremely dry. A common phenomenon on remnant hill/goat prairies in the Driftless and a lesser extent the Kettle Moraine is near complete dominance of little bluestem and low diversity. Some of that is past land use, but often the lower statured stuff hangs on where little bluestem is suppressed, like under the outer canopy of encroaching eastern redcedar (that's where I look for kittentails, prairie phlox, prairie violet, Comandra, etc. hanging on). I'm not surprised by any long-term decline in a planting/restoration that has a fire return interval longer than 2 on average. ...or that never established one or both of the key hemi-parasitic species. There is some evidence too that little bluestem benefits more from spring burning than fall burning...but not mid-spring burning like big bluestem and Indiangrass do.
DeleteThe areas I am referencing are gravel deposits, with some having boulder sized glacial erratics throughout.
DeleteHalf the site with the Polygala seneca is burned each year, so the fire return interval is every other year.
Pedicularis canadensis is established in patches throughout the entire restoration that had the P. seneca disappear. I don’t recall exactly how much P. canadensis is in the area where the P. seneca disappeared. I think the P. seneca is still present in another area of the restoration with a southwest slope but silty soil which has lots of P. canadensis. I will have to check next spring.
At Nachusa Grasslands, grass dominance has occurred in diverse plantings of more sandy soil.
https://grasslandrestorationnetwork.org/2020/08/27/overseeding-prairie-plantings/
I often wonder if some successful diverse plantings are only that way because most prairie plants are very long-lived. After the establishment phase in restorations, what is important is if recruitment is occurring.
Such an important narrative to interpret the prairie landscape. You have a great voice in making the data and science seem easy to understand.... Thank you
ReplyDeleteEven a grade D prairie that has never been plowed may have rare and uncommon soil qualities worthy of protection and include a few remnant CC 10 quality plants. I would think those sites should also be preserved as the intact soil community with all the bacteria and fungi provide a great basis for restoration.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. We have too much used-up wasteland and too little thriving nature. On the other hand, we have only so much time and resources. So I'd tend to recommend that we first save all the Grade A, then all the Grade B, then all the Grade C. But of course it's more complicated than that. How important is a half-acre Grade B prairie compared to a 1,000-acre Grade C? Or Grade D, for that matter. The answer would depend on many circumstances.
DeleteAs I read this I wondered, how did Dr. Betz come to know that “we should cut trees off a prairie” back when “few people understood”?
ReplyDeleteDr. Betz had sought out remnant prairies and, through studying what was there, had learned the prairie plants and their dynamics. When he recognized that the conservative prairie plants were dead or dying where trees were
growing, he was moved to do something about it. He was an educator. He went about teaching people to cut trees that were shading prairies, and to conduct burns.
You write about Dr. Betz in 1972 in order to tell us something. Will readers discern that you are sending a message to us in 2023 about why – contrary to what many good people think - it’s sometimes good to cut trees, etc.?
You write this in a gentle, oblique, and subtle way. I hope that readers think and understand what is at stake, and join in this important work.
YES, that many people who self-label as conservationists are unwilling to kill over-abundant species (trees and deer for example) is a significant political problem in re-establishing the balance of nature enhanced by indigenous people befiore the domination of money.
DeleteThe land is the best teacher and guide, which is another reason why losing good sods is such a tragedy. Many "amature" conservationists that work closely with remnant prairies understand them at least as well, often better, than almost anyone else. It's probably rare that the ecological educations of professionals don't close them up to at least some of those lessons...they did for me until I started to view what I learned formally through the lens of old growth prairie and woodland sods (which is truth, even if we don't understand it).
DeleteMan, that's a tough list-very daunting.
ReplyDelete