Sustainability for Nature Preserves: What It Takes

For caption, see below.

Many of the important and irreplaceable Nature Preserves in Illinois are degrading. That means they’re losing what they were “preserved” to protect.

The following comment, which we’ll claim is partly misguided, was thoughtfully contributed to the Comments section of the DRAFT Case Study post on Tomlinson Nature Preserve. It was one of eight comments that were accepted on that post. (“Accepted”? See Endnote 1.) 

“I see unmanaged remnants full of crown vetch, common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, white mulberry, burning bush, reed canary grass, phragmites, teasel, purple loosestrife, burdock, leafy spurge, expanding sumac clones, tall goldenrod, etc. There are so many invasive species, sometimes the miracle is that there are any natives species left.

“I read through this post and considered the criticisms. My conclusion … good job Champaign County Forest Preserve District.”

We’re glad that this comment was contributed to the discussion. We agree that the Forest Preserve District deserves our support in their challenging mission. (Who’s this “we”? See Endnote 2). 

But we want to resist the idea that the lack of some of the worst problem species indicates management that is good enough. For many years people supported a theory that could be summarized as, “Fight the invasives, and then whatever comes next is good enough. When invasives are gone, nature can manage itself.” We think it’s been plain for some time now that this is not true.        

To be sure, the ideal goal of Nature Preserve management is to reach a state where maximum biodiversity is maintained with minimum human “interference”. We believe it is possible to achieve such a state in the future, where the only care needed in most Nature Preserves is burning and proactive, “nip in the bud” management of new infestations of the worst invasives. We also doubt that we are near this goal at any site in the entire Nature Preserve system.

The reason is that invasives are just one threat to biodiversity, typically among the most obvious. For example, a Grade A (“very high quality”) prairie is supremely, incomparably rich and precious. Such a treasure typically has more than twenty rare plant species per square quarter-meter. If some problem is reducing the richness of plant species, especially the high-conservatives, something is wrong. We have seen this even in apparently well-managed Nature Preserves, where conservative species gradually die out. These species serve as barometers. When they go, it means animals, fungi, and other biota are fading out too. The precious, irreplaceable ecosystem, thousands of years old and reflecting millions of years of evolution, is slipping away. 

We’ve especially seen this problem in oak woodlands, where increasing shade leads to an increasingly pretty display from spring flora in April and May – while also signaling the death knell for summer and fall flora and all the life associated with them. In time so much light is lost that even the keystone oaks themselves can’t reproduce, at which point the oak woods is on its deathbed. This process is under way in most oak woodlands, even when where management for the “usual suspects” like buckthorn and honeysuckle is strong. (See paper on oak woodland conservation in the journal Erigenia.) 

Our point in the post is that if the current management is keeping out crown vetch and buckthorn but allowing rare species to drop out, it is not achieving conservation. A rethink is needed.

There’s an understandable tendency for many well-intentioned people to respond to such concerns by defending the staff managers: “They work hard and deserve our support as they are doing the best job possible.” They do work hard and they certainly do deserve our support. They are not given the resources to do more than a small part of what’s needed. But those truths should not be allowed to obscure the facts on the ground. Nor should it mean we should resign ourselves to biodiversity loss because “we’re trying our best”.

Of course no one actively wants biodiversity loss – but we’ll only really be able to prevent it if we are upfront about the realization that it’s happening, and if we’re not resigned to accepting it as a foregone conclusion. Facing the facts is a first step toward figuring out new approaches we can take to address it. More staff, resources, and volunteers, are needed for most preserves. And the only way we’ll be able to get them is to be forthright about the needs … and when a strong enough constituency is raised to push for increased support for solutions.

Summary of what we need more of:

• Motivated staff and volunteers capable of planning and executing needed management.
• Staff and volunteers capable of and motivated to evaluate preserve health.
• Funding for contractors (for both monitoring and management).
• Advocates and educators who support more funding and needed legislation.
• Less unnecessary and counterproductive bureaucracy. 

For evaluating preserve management and health, we need improved methods, based less on “easy” metrics like acreage treated or dollars spent. We need objective assessment of biodiversity losses and gains.

Staff are crucial. How important are stewards? For some preserves, they provide most of the management. We should also recognize that our Nature Preserves System does not thrive without public engagement and support. Volunteer stewards are among the most impactful, influential, and knowledgeable Nature Preserve advocates. 

 

Woodland flora. August. Many woodlands have largely bare ground this time of year. Invasives mixed with quality flora are infinitely better for conservation than bare ground. Conservative plants shown here include savanna blazing star, cream gentian, wild quinine, obedient plant, wood betony, sky-blue aster, golden Alexanders, and meadow parsnip. 

Endnotes

Endnote 1

Why are comments sometimes removed from this blog?

This blog is set up to accept all comments initially. Sooner or later editor Stephen Packard (and possibly others) review them. The frequent advertisements are then taken down. Obvious trolling is taken down. Well-meaning but not substantive comments are also removed, as they take space and people’s time. If someone writes something like, “Thank you for another good post,” we appreciate it, but in most cases we take it down. If someone makes statements that are obviously false or badly misunderstand the science, we may allow other commenters to clarify and correct, or we may do so ourselves, or if the comment seems more like a time-waster, we take it down.

Of course it’s possible to make mistakes in these decisions. But we do our best.

Endnote 2

Who’s the “we” in this blog? The answer changes from post to post. Stephen Packard edits this blog, and he’s always one of the “we.” Other editors and reviewers are people from the conservation community who have time and choose to do it. Most posts reflect the thinking and expertise of at least three people. Many reflect more. Sometimes those people are listed as authors or thanked in “Acknowledgements” at the end. Sometimes they are not mentioned for a variety of reasons. This blog seeks to represent the best consensus thinking of the evolving discipline of biodiversity conservation. And again, it’s possible to make mistakes in these decisions. We do our best.

Scientific names for species mentioned

Creamn gentian - Gentiana alba

Golden Alexanders - Zizia aurea

Meadow parsnip - Thaspium trifoliatum

Obedient plant - Phystostegia praemorsa

Savanna blazing star - Liatris scariosa var. nieuwlandii

Sky-blue aster - Symphyotrichum oolentangiense (formerly Aster azureus)

Wild quinine - Parthenium integrifolium

Wood betony - Pedicularis canadensis

 

Acknowledgements

 

We appreciate good intentions and wisdom of the anonymous commenter who is quoted at the start of this post.

The original post which drew that comment, now slightly revised, but needing much more revision, is here.

This post was drafted by Stephen Packard and revised by Christos Economou and Dan Carter. 

Two bonus photos:

Death By Maple 1

An open woodland under restoration. The old trees here are white oaks. Bright yellow leaves (upper right) are sugar maple. The tree skinny pole trees closest to the camera are also sugar maple and have created such a dark canopy that little grows beneath in summer and fall. If the maple invasion had been allowed to continue, hundreds of plant species and thousands of other species would have been lost.  

Death By Maple 2

The old trees in this part of the woodland are bur and white oak. They are not reproducing because lack of controlled burns has favored the maples. Shade from the maples is eliminating most of the oak woodland species. 

As John Curtis described this process in The Vegetation of Wisconsin:

“Due to complete fire protection afforded the stand in the last 50 years, the mesic trees began to spread out, basswood going first and farthest, followed by an almost solid wall of young sugar maples. … (T)he shade from the maples brought about the death of the typical oak forest understory … As the period of exposure to low light lengthened, the oak plants gradually died out altogether, although some persisted for decades in a weak, entirely vegetative condition.” 

For more on the needs of oak woodlands, see here. 

Comments on Monitoring and Tomlinson by Prof. Dennis Nyberg

These comments on a post were submitted by Professor Emeritus Dennis Nyberg. Professor Nyberg has long been both a serious researcher, a dedicated natural areas conservationist, and a volunteer steward. The comments touch on many important conservation issues that deserve more attention and discussion. 

I have a history with Tomlinson Nature Preserve. From 1967-70 I lived about a mile and a half northwest (as crow flies) of Tomlinson Cemetery. Though not yet a NP it was known as a pioneer cemetery. My memory is that Tomlinson was a nice prairie (like the INAI, I was focused on prairies), but not one of the best in the late 60s.

In the 2020s I decided to return. The Tomlinson cemetery is difficult to get to. (A permit from the Champaign Cou8nty Forest Preserve District is required to visit it.) Tomlinson is not surrounded by ag fields. The last part of the path runs along the edge of the flood plain of the middle fork of the Vermilion River. The area east of the Nature Preserve is degraded flood plain vegetation. Only south and west are ag fields. 

In the 50+ years since my original visit, the prairie component had greatly reduced while hazel and American bittersweet had greatly increased. American bittersweet is being overwhelmed genetically by oriental bittersweet (Zaya) so the abundance of American bittersweet at this isolated site was a positive for me. Yes, Tomlinson NP has degraded, but not nearly as much as the formerly fine prairies along the IC tracks (north of Rantoul) and the Short Line prairie east of Gifford (which was plowed during a 1970s ag crisis).

What are my thoughts on this blog post and general comments.

1) Nature is dynamic. There are often big changes at the same place from year to year. Comparisons of inventories done by different individuals/groups without knowing the details of the dates and methods is of very limited value. The more specific the inventory (quadrats, no repetition at different dates) the more likely to find differences that are exaggerated by methods of data collection. A meandering inventory of the entire site with abundance category estimates gives a better picture of sites less than 10 acres and takes a lot less time.

2) If the time and energy put into sampling and inventories had been put into management to enhance native community the site would be much better than it is with inventories. Back in the late 80s I went to a talk by Prof. Roger Anderson about 20+ years of monitoring what started as a prairie opening but was degrading with non-native species and woodies. I thought how much better to do something than to document the degradation.

Management is harder to do than collect data. One has to deal with others whose permission is needed. Management requires tools and other things that need to be purchased. Management often requires other people that need to be recruited and trained. Many people are ready to inventory and count, but with explanation of the importance of management many will choose that route which makes a real difference, i.e. actually helps the native community.

FQA as described in literature is based on the entire species list. Transformations to subset of the lists has not been evaluated. It may be useful, but 8 does not seem obviously better than 5 or 10. Using cover % would be more useful (but see #1).

It is good that the Champaign County Forest Preserve is involved. I speculate that the fire shown was after my 2023 visit. CCFP has a major restoration along the middle fork of the Vermilion river upstream from Tomlinson NP. CCFP seems to have both the knowledge and resources to do good management work.

I have visited over 100 nature preserves throughout Illinois. For those I have visited twice or more, almost all are degrading to a knowledgeable observer. Some are getting better, some have retained excellence with good management. Those I have visit only once were often in such poor condition that there was no motivation for a second visit. As noted in your post the original idea was to stop harvests, and all would be fine. Then, the negative effects of non-native species was recognized. Now good management involves regulating abundance of native animals and trees. It takes knowledge and resources. There are owners that are doing effective management. 

Friends of Illinois Nature Preserves recruits and honors people who want to maintain/enhance native communities. Probably more preserves would have active management if there were a periodic, say ten years, re-certification process. Places that were not accomplishing the goals set in dedication would lose status. We do reviews of species as Threatened or Endangered every 5 years. New species are added and species meeting abundance goals are removed. A similar system should apply to Nature Preserves.

 

Dennis Nyberg

Professor Emeritus

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Illinois at Chicago

The Eagles Knew Better (but perhaps not the horses)

 “Many so-called specialists thought this would be impossible,” he said. 

“The eagles had a different opinion.”

Red deer (elk) and tarpan (horses) in a new wilderness, sort of.

Franz Vera was speaking of the Oostvaarderplassen – an ecosystem reconstruction on 15,000 acres in the Netherlands, 30 minutes from Amsterdam. Vera and colleagues are building a Paleolithic landscape that includes great herds of mega-fauna including extinct aurochs (giant cattle) and tarpan (original horses), or at least their ghosts, bred back to something like wildness from the most ancient strains that survive. 

The white-tailed eagle narrowly escaped extinction. They were said to need mature, tall trees to nest and hadn’t bred in the Netherlands since the Middle Ages. A pair showed up at Oostvaarderplassen and built a nest “nearly the size of an armchair. It seemed ready to topple the scrawny tree it was perched in,” according to an engaging December 24, 2012, New Yorker article by Elizabeth Kolbert. 

Experts said they wouldn't show.

It feels peculiar for a North American restoration ecologist to read about the Oostvaarderplassen – even though the whole project has its roots here. The “re-wilding” concept was developed by American conservation biologists Michael Soule and Reed Noss, who in turn drew some inspiration from the prairie restoration movement of the Midwest. But what’s so peculiar is the lack of any discussion about plants, in either Kolbert’s article or any of the top Oostvaarderplassen choices on Google. 

Many North American ecosystem restorations have been rightly criticized for not paying enough attention to animals. The Oostvaarderplassen work seems all animal. Of course, the Europeans have no counterpart to “natural area” in the American sense. Their original, high-quality plant communities were grazed, plowed, and cut out of existence millennia ago. In some ways the Oostvaarderplassen is a big farm. By winter there’s no grass left, and the charismatic grazers are fed hay. 

Restoring the aurochs to wild Europe is much like restoring the mammoth to the ancient wilds of North America. 

Oostvaarderplassen has about 1,000 tarpan (horses), 300 aurochs-like cattle, and about 3,000 red deer (elk). They've been joined by huge numbers of geese, egrets, and other birds. Notice the possibly nervous heron, below left. 

No one speaks of restoring the wolf, lion or bear – all wiped out in most of Europe long ago. Of course Oostvaarderplassen, about the size of the Palos forest preserves, is too small for big carnivores.

Enter "Rewinding Europe" – launched by “two Dutchmen, a Swede, and a Scot.” As of 2012, they had raised six million Euros to pursue five rewilding areas - each fifteen times bigger than Oostvaarderplassen.  

2026 Update

Oostvaarderplassen failed in one big way. Without predators, the assumption was that the large animals would just die of old age or starvation, as if that were good and natural. But in the absence of predation, during the winter of 2017-2018 of the reserve's 5,200 large animals, almost 3,300 cattle, horses, and deer died or were shot in badly emaciated states to reduce their suffering. There was public outcry and a consensus that something was wrong. 

The Dutch Forestry Service now manages and has expanded the reserve. Following studies, they removed all the horses and regularly relocate or shoot other large animals to reduce the populations. The reserve remains a hugely successful habitat for birds and other animals. It's popular with visitors. Efforts to connect it with a park in Germany have terminated. 

Inspired by early successes at Oostvaarderplassen, related Rewilding Europe initiatives now cover large areas around Europe, from Sweden and Scotland to Romania and Ukraine, reporting many successes, especially for birds.      

Two Notes

This post (thought-provoking?) is an update on a 2012 post in our predecessor/partner blog, Vestal Grove. 

The better-managed bison reintroduction to Nachusa Grasslands is an interesting comparison for people who want to wrestle with what these issues mean about nature and its conservation. 

Nature Preserve Quality Assessment - case study - apparent loss from 1996 through 2015

THIS POST IS A DISCUSSION DRAFT. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED EDITS ARE WELCOME.

INDEED, THIS POST NEEDS TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY RE-WRITTEN. BUT IMPROVED MONITORING - AND RESULTING IMPROVED MANAGEMENT - ARE BADLY NEEDED. THIS VERSION IS BEING LEFT UP FOR NOW AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION.

Important note: This post is not about the current state of Tomlinson Nature Preserve nor is about the management in recent years. It's about the state of the preserve as seen by studies dated 1996 and 2015. It focuses on the question of whether we have systems of monitoring and analysis of ecosystem quality (or health or integrity) that are adequate to assure the long term health of the preserves. 

In 1985 Tomlinson was permanently protected as a one-acre Illinois Nature Preserve. Originally called Tomlinson Cemetery Prairie, this remnant, according to the Nature Preserve website, “is one of only two savannas protected as nature preserves in the Grand Prairie Section of the Grand Prairie Natural Division.” High-quality savannas are even rarer than prairies. This is a very precious site. 

The Illinois Nature Preserves System was once a world model. It assembled resources to rescue and provide permanent legal protection to our most important remnants of biodiversity. But increasingly, questions have been raised about how well the quality of the preserves in that system is being maintained. 

In 2020, this blog cited concerns about declines in quality of 47 Nature Preserves in all parts of the state. One entry read:

Champaign County: Tomlinson Pioneer Cemetery Prairie Nature Preserve: Seems not to have been burned sufficiently often. Domes of dense hazel have shaded out the previously diverse vegetation over substantial areas.

But it does get burned at least occasionally as shown below in two photos referred to as "recent" on a history website named Clio.  

So how concerned should we be? 

Three studies help us evaluate. In a 2003 study, Bowles and Jones determined that high-quality prairies and savannas which get burned less often than every two years were declining in quality. Ultimately, insufficient burning means losing species and genetic alleles – defeating the very purpose of these preserves.

Friends of Illinois Nature Preserves have been working with anyone interested to assemble information on the state of the preserves. In the process, Friends field rep Stone Hansard came across a scientific paper on Tomlinson by Ellis and Wolz published by the Illinois State Academy of Science in 2015. 

They compared their data to that from nearby prairies, which are thought to be similar to savannas in many respects, and in the absence of high-quality savannas may indeed be the best models. The authors provided these assessments: 

●      Species richness and diversity at Tomlinson is comparable to prairie and savanna remnants in the Region 

●      The number of native species recorded at this small preserve (103) is similar to reports from other prairie remnants 

●      We recorded more native species than Betz and Lamp (1989) in their survey of 29 prairie remnants (range of 30-89 native species per site) and their survey of eight savanna remnants (range of 33-75 native species per site) 

●      An FQI of 32.7 (36.1 native species only) shows relatively high floristic value. Prairie sites with an I of 35 or higher are considered good quality 

●      The relatively high species richness in this small preserve is comforting from a conservation perspective 

The data in this study make an important contribution. A person could conclude from it that the condition of the site was fine. Given the lack of resources for such studies, the argument could be made that this evaluation was sufficient. 

But as it turned out, a third paper, this one by Bowles and McBride, included data on this same preserve seventeen years earlier. This paper was a report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Ellis and Wolz seem not to have known about this “before” data and didn’t use it to assess trends.  

Data Sets Compared

Both Tomlinson studies based their analysis on quadrat data. In 1996, Bowles and McBride highlighted eight species as especially significant; they comprised 50% of total relative cover (basically, how much total leaf surface is attributable to the various species). These eight species “dominated” the plant community in 1996. 

One way to compare is “floristic quality assessment.” Key to this approach are the various species’ Coefficients of Conservatism (C). Higher numbers suggest a community of greater quality, integrity, or health. In the table below we compare the species that comprised 50% of cumulative relative frequency in Bowles and McBride with the comparable eight species in Ellis and Wolz. 

The mean C for the eight most common species in the two studies were as follows: 

	1996	2013	% decrease
Mean C	4.5	3.1	31%

With good management of a natural area, we would expect the Mean C of the dominant vegetation to remain stable or increase. A drop of 31% in less than two decades suggests a major loss in quality. Therefore this result is troubling. 

The meaning of the above disappointing numbers becomes clearer when we compare the two dominant plant lists. In 1996 the eight species that comprised half the relative cover (roughly equivalent to “most common”) are shown in Table 1a.

All the species in Table 1 (except the “weedy” wild lettuce) are characteristic of high-quality savannas. Under normal conditions they, or others like them, could be expected to remain the most common in this preserve. 

Table 1. Most common plants in 1996

Scientific Name	C	Common Name
Andropogon gerardii	5	big bluestem
Calystegia spithamaea	10	dwarf bindweed
Corylus americana	4	American filbert
Elymus canadensis	4	Canada wild rye
Euphorbia corollata	3	flowering spurge
Helianthus hirsutus	5	bristly sunflower
Lactuca canadensis	1	wild lettuce
Sorghastrum nutans	4	Indian grass

Table 1b shows the comparable species list in 2013.

A first warning sign in this data is that three of the most common species in 2013 suggest degradation: Kentucky blue grass, black raspberry, and Canada goldenrod. Indeed, Kentucky bluegrass, a species said to be associated with insufficient burning, was the second most frequent species recorded in 2013 (in 90% of the plots). 

It’s worth it for conservationists to learn to understand such measures and indicators. We who care need to be well-informed, to set our own priorities. Where should we volunteer to help? What should we advocate for? Where should we contribute funds? How do we compellingly make our voices heard? 

Government programs don’t work if left to the politicians and staff alone. More “citizen scientists” and  dedicated volunteer advocates are needed. As the preserve system has grown, the budget and staffing have shrunk, possibly because most people who care don’t know that there’s a problem. Are many Nature Preserves facing declines like those faced by Tomlinson? Is there a practical way to evaluate all the Nature Preserves? How confident are we that we’re not letting their quality slip away? 

In the early days of the Nature Preserve System, people thought that we could mostly just erect fences and let nature “take its course.” Sadly, in recent decades, a variety of stresses have overwhelmed the capacities of natural areas to manage themselves. The elimination of predators. reduced fire frequency, introduction of exotic species, climate change, fragmentation, and urban sprawl took their toll.

The 639 Illinois Nature Preserves total 125,284 acres. The value of this land, based on averaging various sources is $6.3 billion dollars. We, the public, paid for that land, through donations, tax breaks, and in other ways. That’s a wise investment in precious, rare, and irreplaceable biodiversity. Quality preserves also provide many other public benefits. And yet, large parts of this nature are still uncared for or under-cared-for. Many seem to be degrading as a result of a lack of needed resources.

The Nature Preserves System needs a better approach to studies and monitoring. For example, if an academic or citizen scientist is attempting to conduct a helpful study, there should be someone who could click a button and get access to a list of other studies on the site. 

Three Photos

Two photos from Matt Evans may help readers to visualize this preserve. They are from 2019.

The orange leaves are the shrub hazel.

 

Hazelnut bushes and young oak trees are a natural part of a savanna. But diverse and conservative herb vegetation is critical to a savanna preserve's biodiversity. If the woody vegetation becomes so dense that it shades out and kills off much of the herb diversity, a large part of the value of the preserve is lost. 

Backstory

What’s important about Nature Preserves is that they are the last surviving habitats for hundreds of species of now-rare and interdependent plants and animals. 

For any species of plant to be adequately conserved, it needs a full complement of its genetic diversity. That typically requires a population of 50 or 100 individuals, or more. Next, each plant species has other species associated with it (and often interdependent with it).These associated species include animals, fungi, other soil biota, and more. It has been estimated that for every plant there are an estimated 10 associated animal species. The easiest to monitor are the plants. 

If numbers of plants and animals (mostly invertebrates, including pollinators and predators that help keep the system in balance) fall below what it takes to survive disease outbreaks, droughts, fire, etc., the system may gradually lose sustainability. Then the many diverse species are replaced by a few common ones. As species and genetic richness are lost, overall survivability of the ecosystem declines. For more details on biodiversity, click here. 

Monitoring by simple species counts is insufficient. One plant of a species surviving makes the list look good, but most genetic diversity of that species has likely been lost, and any species of interdependent pollinators or other animals are likely gone as well. 

Miscellaneous Notes:

Bowles and McBride sampled only once. As Ellis and Wolz sampled throughout the growing season (six times), they were able to list an additional 54 species, indicating more complete sampling. But the mean C of these 54 was a disappointing 2.8. 

An impressive 2013 growing-season-long video of Tomlinson can be found here. 

References:

Bowles, M. and J. McBride. 1996. Report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Ill. Click here.

Bowles, Marlin and Michael Jones. 2003. Twenty-five Year Trends of Chjange in Prairie and Wetland Natural Areas in the Chicago Region of Northeastern Illinois. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Click here.

Ellis, James L. and Kevin J. Wolz. Vegetation of Tomlinson Pioneer Cemetery Prairie Nature Preserve, Champaign County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science (2018) Volume 111, pp. 11-16 received 12/1/15 accepted 3/4/18. click here. 

Universal FQI. The FQI Database used in this post was: Taft, J. B., Wilhelm, G. S., Ladd, D. M., & Masters, L. A. 1997. Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois, a method for assessing vegetation integrity. Westville: Illinois Native Plant Society. Click here. 

Finding the References on the Internet 

Don Osmond offered the following:

As an exercise I tried to search for info on Tomlinson, reference your comments on clicking a button to get info on a particular site.  I looked at the first 3 pages of each search.  The Ellis study was found (behind a paywall) but not the Bowles one.  I found one source you may not have seen (see below).  When I search the Bowles title in Google Scholar, it finds the full text.  So location based searches in a few free search engines were only partly effective in finding sources.

“tomlinson cemetery”
Nothing found in Google Scholar or Duck Duck Go

tomlinson cemetery (no quotes)
Google Scholar
Original INAI survey & interesting comments from an early steward, who brings up a thought provoking viewpoint that mowing at this prairie could be more effective than burning.
https://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=grandprairiefriends_prairie_sites_docs

Duck Duck Go: nothing

“tomlinson pioneer cemetery”
nothing found in Google Scholar

Duck Duck Go
Ellis study you referenced behind a paywall

tomlinson pioneer cemeteries (no quotes-suggested by Google)
Google Scholar: Ellis study you referenced behind a paywall

For other Strategies for Stewards posts on monitoring and studies, click here.

Acknowledgements

The authors of the scientific papers deserve principal credit. There would be no solid basis for evaluating this preserve without their important work. Credit goes to Marlin Bowles, Jenny McBride, James Ellis, and Kevin Wolz. There should be more funding for such work. 

Burns and management of Tomlinson are to the credit of the Champaign County Forest Preserve District. 

Thanks to Clio (https://theclio.com) for the burn photos. 

Thanks to Matt Evans for the growing season photos.