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. 

These losses proceed in varying ways but are equally problematic in prairies, savannas, woodlands, and wetlands. 

For example, in oak woodlands increasing shade may lead to a prettier display of spring flora in April and May but signal the death knell for summer and fall flora and all the life associated with those plants. 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 today, even 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 this 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 our conservation goals. 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 - Physostegia 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, Melissa Grycan, and Dan Carter. 

Two bonus photos - a woodland example:

Death By Maple 1

An open woodland slowly regaining health under restoration. The old trees here are white oaks. Bright yellow leaves (upper right) are sugar maple. So are the three skinny pole trees closest to the camera; the maples had created such a dark canopy that little grows beneath them (the foreground) in summer and fall. These three will be cut or girdled and diversity restored from nearby-collected seed. If the maple invasion had been allowed to continue, hundreds of plant species and thousands of other species (animals, fungi, micro-organisms) would have been lost from this preserve.  

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 sufficient fire has favored the maples. Shade from those maples continues to reduce and ultimately eliminate most of the oak woodland species (plants and animals both). 

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.