Dogwood Dilemma

by Don Osmond

Dogwood is one of the most difficult woody invaders to control in prairies because it has a deep bag of tricks.  Like many woody plants, it readily resprouts when grazed, cut or burned, sometimes producing more stems after the disturbance than before.  It likely has access to deeper water sources than prairie grass, allowing it to ride out droughts.  The biggest advantage it has is combining a large clonal root system that resists herbicides with a substantial underground reserve of starch, the fuel needed to resprout after disturbance.

I recently tried to control dogwood in a remnant & failed miserably.  This post is my attempt to tap the scientific literature to hopefully inform a new approach that reduces the effort needed over time rather than increasing it, as well as suggesting needed experiments.  I used Google Scholar to locate 92 open access studies & 38 abstracts (full text behind a paywall).  This included a small number of Cornus racemosa & drummondii studies, papers on other deciduous clonal shrubs to get an idea of general woody plant behavior, studies of woody plant resprouting mechanisms, studies on root storage dynamics & discussions on woody plant encroachment in grasslands.  I weighted the studies using various criteria & combined them with a small number of high quality field reports.

 

My treatment failure

In 2022-23 I performed dormant season cut stump herbicide treatment on multiple patches that were somewhat isolated from each other, but it’s hard to know what is going on underground, so I may not have treated the entire clone, as there are other patches in the area.  20% Garlon 4 equivalent in bark oil was meticulously applied with a low pressure stream nozzle to all but the tiniest stumps with no snow on the ground & 48 hours precipitation free after application.

 

The next growing season all was good.  Very few resprouts occurred, mostly at patch edges where there were some scattered uncut plants outside the patch.  Perhaps the root system outside the patch counteracted herbicide on the patch fringes.  Even though I looked carefully, it’s possible I missed tiny resprouts in the thatch, so this summer I’ll look harder at a clone I cut stump herbicided in fall 2024.  The positive result of few resprouts was a go signal to continue cut stump the next dormant season of 2023-24.  The site was burned in March 2024.  What I saw in August was demoralizing.  There were resprouts, which didn’t surprise me because fire triggers resprouting in woody plants.  But it was widespread & abundant in patches treated 0.5 years ago as well as 1.5 years ago, much different than a year before.  It’s as if the burn had counteracted the herbicide effects (by a nutrient pulse?).  Of course, I don’t know what the result would be if no burn had occurred.  Perhaps the herbicide “wears off”?  Or the combination of herbicide & the shading of dense grass prevented resprouts the year before?  Did the burn stimulate rhizome buds that were not stimulated by cut stump herbiciding?  Lots of theories.  One thing I noticed is resprout density was lower, sometimes zero, in the densely populated patch center.  My theory for that is the denser, larger diameter stems in the patch center translocated more herbicide to the root than the more scattered, small diameter stems in the patch fringes.

 

What is NSC (nonstructural carbohydrates)? (also called TNC: total nonstructural carbohydrates)

Control of dogwood was not going to be easy, so I needed to get acquainted with the plant I was dealing with & how it functions.  For most plants, leaf photosynthesis leads to the production of NSC, mainly consisting of sugars & starch, which is used for many plant processes including storage.  The main purpose of storage in the form of starch is to provide fuel for growth when leaves are not present due to dormancy (e.g. for bud break & initial leaf out) & in the event disturbance removes or hinders photosynthetic ability.  Examples of disturbance are grazing, burning, cutting, disease, insect defoliation and drought.  In clonal plants, injury to only a portion of the clone could remobilize NSC from the nearest uninjured stems (which also store NSC for short term use) rather than the main rhizome.  Therefore such injury may not affect NSC stores, but I couldn’t find a study that confirms this.

 

Seasonal variation of NSC in root storage pools

Many species of woody trees & shrubs have a similar pattern.  In early spring, root NSC concentrations drop to a minimum to supply the resources for leaf emergence & expansion.  Then there is a rapid increase as the resprouts or branch leaves start photosynthesizing, sending resources to the roots, replenishing the low NSC reserves.  The increase continues until it reaches a peak in mid-summer to early fall (depending on the species), then slowly decreases over the dormant season as it supplies respiration needs.  We are interested in the minimum seasonal level because theoretically, removing stem photosynthesis at that time means root NSC will be tapped to fuel new resprouts, lowering root NSC even further.  The hope is that yearly cutting at that time will reduce NSC in steps until the plant dies or is severely weakened.  NSC minimum in Cornus racemosa occurs when the flowers start opening around June 1, but since NSC rapidly rises after that point & growth stages vary year to year, scout often to nail the date for cutting.

 

Can we use sumac control techniques on dogwood?

Since both of these often co-exist on a site & both are clonal, it’s tempting to think they respond to disturbance similarly.  But there is a major difference between them.  Dogwood is on the phalanx end of the phalanx-guerilla spectrum for clonal woody plants while sumac is on the guerilla end.  The guerilla strategy is to quickly grow rhizomes relatively far from the central clone to test the suitability of habitat.  The outer stems are spaced relatively far apart & tend not to resprout when cut.  The inner stems do resprout & produce seeds.  Phalanx is a slow advancement of closely spaced stems.  The inner stems produce seed while outer ones conquer territory.  Also, a study found the 2 had very different above ground carbon allocation, drought tolerance & photosynthetic capacity.  So sumac & dogwood are likely to require different management techniques.  For reference, multiple people have had success eradicating sumac clones by cutting just after flowering when root NSC is lowest (around July 1), then cutting the resprouts around August 1 for several consecutive years.

 

What are the results of single or multiple cuts in the growing season & cutting for multiple consecutive years?

Cutting in the dormant season is not effective since dogwood roots contain more than enough NSC to resprout in the spring.  Cutting should be on the entire clone at once, to prevent photosynthesizing stems in untreated parts of the clone from sending resources to the treated part.  Clones can grade into each other, making it difficult to know where one ends & another begins.  Stems can store some NSC needed for resprouting,  so cut them close to the ground.  Leave as much ground vegetation as possible to help shade resprouts.

 

I have no anecdotal reports with enough detail & found only one useful study on cutting dogwood.  The study was only 2 years long & didn’t treat entire clones.  2 consecutive years of cutting somewhat near the date where root NSC was minimum, then allowing one year of rest, resulted in root NSC returning to pre-treatment levels.  That seems to indicate failure, but resprout growth was slow, which could indicate low NSC reserves before the rest period, or that the plant was actively allocating more resources to storage than to growth due to the disturbance.  The second year of cutting produced less % cover than the first year.  So there are small indications that cutting was hurting the plant.  If they treated the entire clone at once & more carefully nailed the seasonal timing, their results would show more success.  I think a single summer cut at the time of minimum root NSC for at least 3 consecutive years is worth trying.  Installing a few small study plots will help you assess results by annually taking a picture & measuring average stem height, diameter & density.  I wouldn’t adopt this strategy for large areas until experiments indicate it works in conjunction with burning.

 

Cutting twice in the growing season for multiple years should theoretically be better than cutting once, but I found no studies on it.  It works for sumac, but as I pointed out earlier, that plant likely requires different management techniques than dogwood.  The first cut should be timed for minimum root NSC.  It’s unclear when the second cut should be (see the section below on seasonal timing) and it’s unknown if there will be any resprouts in the months following the 1^st cut.  Since I’m too busy with other weeds in the growing season, I’m not considering cutting twice in a year.

 

More on the timing of summer cutting

Besides cutting when root NSC is minimum, another strategy that works in some species is to cut late in the growing season.  Studies admit it’s unknown why this sometimes works & they say more research is needed.  One theory is this method can interfere with the plant hardening off before freezing temperatures arrive, causing injury or death.  Because so much is unknown, I don’t think experimenting with this method is a good use of scarce resources.

 

A Kansas study on Cornus drummondii:  An early May burn shifted the time of NSC minimum from late May to about July 1.  It’s unknown if earlier spring burns would have the same effect.  So cutting after a spring burn should perhaps be delayed until the resprouts fully open their leaves.  In addition, root NSC was lower after a spring burn compared to unburned but a New York study with a late April burn didn’t show this difference.  So it’s unknown if cutting after a spring burn is more effective compared to cutting without a burn.

 

What about burning?

As with most shrubs, fire increases stem density.  A burn interval of over 2 years may be effective in preventing the establishment of some shrub species, but if in the past that interval increased temporarily, shrubs can establish & once that happens, you need intervals shorter than 2 years to prevent expansion.  Even annual burns will probably not reduce clone coverage in some cases, but will likely stop expansion.  Bill Kleiman at The Nature Conservancy Nachusa Grassland has kept dogwood density acceptable in one location by one summer mow followed by an average 1.5 year burn interval for 30 years.  Rich Henderson of The Prairie Enthusiasts reports 30 years of near annual burning of an 8’ diameter clone resulted in only a few tiny stems.  That indicates even small clones with relatively immature root systems are quite fire resistant.  Each site will need to choose burn intervals based on factors like bird/insect populations & resource availability.  Cutting dense clone centers before burning will gradually allow an adequate intensity of fire to reach all parts of the clone.

 

Herbiciding

The few studies I found on herbiciding dogwood used small treatment plots that included only part of the clone, so it’s likely untreated stems outside the plots provided resources to roots in the plot, making results worse than if the entire clone was treated.  They also didn’t monitor for a long enough time to prove roots were killed.  So I couldn’t use their results.

 

I also couldn’t use some anecdotal reports due to not mentioning whether entire clones were treated & lack of long term follow-up monitoring.  Here are some of the more useful experiences:

·      Rich Henderson of The Prairie Enthusiasts reports glyphosate cut stump is more effective than triclopyr, killing stems 6-12” away from the application point, indicating good translocation.

·      A contractor reported cut stump herbiciding followed by 3 consecutive years of burning reduced it to the point where normal burn intervals will keep it in check.  While many sites cannot do annual burning, this indicates that a single initial herbicide treatment could injure the clone enough that repeated annual disturbance (maybe substitute herbiciding or growing season cutting for fire in non-fire years) could lead to a permanent less intense invaded state.

·      Stephen Packard reported dormant season basal bark or cut stump worked well on small, low density populations, but there were resprouts in denser ones.  He said multiple years of herbicide will likely be needed.

·      The late Tom Vanderpoel of Citizens for Conservation was very experienced & was bullish on dribbling herbicide on the stems in the growing season without the liquid reaching the ground, using only the best people & only in remnants due to labor intensiveness.  For degraded areas he mowed & followed up with foliar herbicide.

·      An anecdotal report from The Nature Conservancy Indiana found excellent control of Cornus racemosa by dormant season cut stump herbiciding followed by spring burning after bud break, repeating as many years as necessary.  For most sites, burning at that time is undesirable or impossible, but the concept of weakening the plant with herbicide & then hitting it again with another stress when it starts growing is interesting.

 

Discussion & Conclusion

·      Foliar spray is worth trying in degraded areas with no desirable natives.  Theoretically the best time for foliar is when NSC is moving from photosynthesizing leaves to the root.  For dogwood, this is mid-June in New York.

·      Dormant season cut stump is very labor intensive for dogwood, but it removes biomass, which allows less moist conditions in dense clones, probably improving fire behavior.  With the proper techniques, proper equipment & attention to precipitation events, there will be no off target kill.  In one year, I saw dogwood sap flow with cut stump starting 4/11 but not on 4/26.  So there is a narrow window when cut stump should not be performed.  Based on Rich Henderson’s experience, more experiments are needed to replicate his results with glyphosate.

·      Basal bark is also worth trying & is also labor intensive, but not as much as cut stump.  However there are serious drawbacks using such a high herbicide concentration, especially if the applicator is not methodical & careful.  If precipitation occurs within 4 days of application, enough herbicide can wash into the soil to cause a dead zone, even if the application is in the dormant season.  Weather forecasts 4 days out are wrong often enough.  Basal bark application in remnants must be done with a wick, squeeze bottle or paint roller instead of a sprayer, but it’s still easy to drip or fling herbicide into the ground.  In degraded areas, if you use a sprayer for basal bark, you will have dead zones due to the small diameter of dogwood stems, so it isn’t recommended.  

·      It is unknown if any of the above methods are better than the other or whether dormant season basal bark or cut stump is worse than growing season.  The disadvantage of growing season is most stewards are swamped with weed work & will have little time for woody plant control. 

·      Overall conclusion

Herbicides are probably a necessary part of dogwood management.  Multiple application methods & how those interact with burning make it difficult to choose a path forward.  The most appealing approach to me for higher quality areas is a carefully executed single dormant season cut stump or basal bark application to the entire clone, followed by a growing season basal bark application to resprouts or cutting resprouts at the time of minimum root NSC without herbicide.  For herbiciding, 4 days precip free after treatment (maybe less for cut stump), no snow on the ground.  In remnants, the same approach except omit growing season basal bark.  For degraded areas, I think the best approach is to mow or cut when root NSC is minimum & foliar spray the resprouts.  All treatments to be done at least 3 consecutive years.  I think this strikes a decent balance between reasonable chances to be effective while minimizing labor time.

 

Can drought help?

Studies report dogwood is unlikely to be negatively affected by drought, unless it’s very severe.

 

Early invasions

If a new dogwood population appears in a prairie, it’s imperative to control it while the root is small enough to have limited NSC reserves.  Stephen Packard reports basal bark or cut stump treatment is effective on small, sparse populations.  The best method for a degraded area would be foliar spray (if no desirable natives present) or basal bark timed to coincide with minimum root NSC.  For remnants, dormant season basal bark (4 days precip free after treatment, no snow on the ground) or growing season cutting at ground level timed to coincide with NSC minimum.

 

Experiments

We need more long term experiments for dogwood control.  They should be done on obviously isolated clones. Nearby clones could be connected underground by grafting or rhizomes & if so, those untreated stems will send resources to resprouts in the treated area, making the results worse than if the entire clonal system was treated.  Choose reasonably mature clones with larger root systems (stem height >3’ in clone center).  A small monitoring plot should be installed in both the center & near the edge of the clone.  Before treatment & yearly thereafter, take a picture in the growing season (to show % leaf cover) & measure average stem height, diameter & density.  Results should not be reported until a burn has occurred & one year has elapsed since the last treatment.  This is because above ground visuals don’t tell us if the root is dead or injured & in the latter case, resprouts may be delayed a year.  Since it’s likely impossible to eliminate established dogwood, monitoring will tell us if treatment is trending toward a realistic goal of scattered small stems that can be maintained by 2-3 year fire intervals.  More experiments using glyphosate instead of triclopyr for cut stump are needed.  Hard water antagonizes glyphosate, so before using it with such water, order a Hach 5B hardness test (test strips may not have enough resolution).  One study found a large decrease in glyphosate effectiveness at 50 ppm or mg/L.  Test yearly.

 

For the remnant where I performed dormant season cut stump 2 years ago, I’m going to hedge my bets & try 2 different treatments.  I’ll try cutting the resprouts this summer in half the area & dormant season basal bark in the other half, keeping in mind there was a full season of resprouting last summer (I was too busy to treat it & didn’t have a plan), which likely replenished root carbs.  I performed cut stump herbiciding on a clone in the same area in fall of 2024 & installed 2 small monitoring plots.  No burn is scheduled for 2025, so this will better indicate if resprouts are less in the clone center compared to the edges.  I’ll perform annual summer cutting on this clone to see if one cut stump treatment followed by annual summer cutting is effective.  I’ll also try dormant season cut stump treatment using 50% Roundup equivalent in softened water on an isolated clone.  Hopefully, I can perform a summer cutting only experiment on an obviously isolated clone.  I’d like to find a method that minimizes multiple herbicide events, putting the herbicide event in the non-busy dormant season & cutting once in the busy summer weed season with motorized equipment, which goes quickly.  Since there are many variables site to site, the more stewards experimenting, the better.

The Pulse of Curiosity: an exploration of an endangered aster

by Noah Hornak

To let one’s curiosity run loose can be likened to traveling on a helm-less ship, at the mercy of natural chaos, as it blunders its way through drunken waves and shifting winds. It’s only when you relinquish control and allow passion and open-mindedness to be the driving forces that you eventually reach your desired (and perhaps surprising) discovery. I believe that in order to expand one's breadth of knowledge and experience, you must often take trips like these, blind to any preconceived destination, and develop a humble trust towards curiosity. This can be said for any interest in life, but I find it especially applicable to the study of our natural world.

This fall I was invited to monitor and study one of Illinois’s threatened woodland species, Forked Aster (Eurybia furcata, formerly Aster furcatus). Impacted heavily by habitat loss, fragmentation, fire suppression, and invasive species, this handsome white-flowered aster has declined precipitously throughout the Midwest. To make matters more dire, according to the Center for Plant Conservation, E. furcata is self-incompatible: it is an obligate out-crosser unable to produce viable seed when pollinated by genetically similar individuals. This theoretically results in “mate limitation”, a situation where over time a population dies out from lack of reproduction because it never receives pollen from a genetically distinct individual.

Eurybia furcata (Forked Aster)

At Somme Woods in Northbrook, IL, multiple populations of E. furcata can be found growing within the 265 acre Oak Woodland-Savanna matrix. The subpopulation I monitored had been tracked previously in 2017 and 2019 but had not been sampled or analyzed since then.

Having never collected monitoring data before, I was excited to study how this imperiled aster has been doing for the previous five years and to explore approaches to monitoring plant populations. As with anything we try to do for the first time, we can conceive of how we expect things to play out, but oftentimes the methods or tools we bring to the table turn out to not be as effective as we expected. Fortunately, I was joined by Stephen Packard in this process who supported me as both mentor and catalyst to help me learn his techniques about how to capture data effectively.

The Data

The transect runs down the center of a brook and starts in line with a large Northern Red Oak neighboring a Swamp White Oak of the same size. The transect follows the brook’s meandering course until reaching the finish line 146 meters to the east between two charismatically large Swamp White Oaks. Data was taken for all flowering stems within 5 meters north and south of the brook’s banks making the transect’s total area about 1,800 square meters.

Outlined in green is the transect following the middle fork of South Brook, with Dundee Road to the south.

This subpopulation of E. furcata was established through the efforts of stewards within the Chicagoland area collecting and broadcasting seed methodically along the South Brook. Care was taken to collect this seed from multiple remnant populations in order to introduce a locally adapted and genetically diverse mix into Somme Woods.

E. furcata spreads through underground rhizomes, which immediately posed a challenge when trying to determine one individual plant from another when two clonal individuals grow close together. The solution we decided to follow would be to collect data based on “clumps”, or groups of individuals which had blended together and were thus indistinguishable. Utilizing this approach we counted a total of 71 clumps, an increase from 62 found in 2019 and 49 in 2017. More clumps being formed each year suggests that the existing individuals within the population are successfully reproducing.

	2017	2019	2024
Total Clumps	49	62	71
Clumps Found on Northern Side of Brook	N/A	39	47
Clumps Found on Southern Side of Brook	N/A	23	24

Given a steady and growing increase in the total number of clumps along the brook, perhaps the population has a sufficiently wide genetic diversity of individuals resulting in successful cross-pollination by insects. This seems to be a relatively uncommon situation among other Midwestern E. furcata populations that appear to be struggling. 

	2019	2024
Total Flowering Stems	263 (N: 135, S: 128)	922 (N: 523, S: 399)
Average Flowering Stems/Clump	4.2	13.0

 Flowering Stems Data Table; N = flowering stems found on northern side of brook, S = flowering stems found on southern side of brook

Within each clump, we counted the number of flowering stems to help gauge the size and health of individual clumps. We saw a substantial increase in the number of flowering stems. In 2024, these totaled 922 with an average of 12.9 flowering stems per clump compared to a 2019 total of 263 flowering stems and an average 4.2 flowering stems per clump. This suggests that either each plant is successfully growing clonally through underground rhizomes or perhaps individuals are indeed reproducing sexually and new plants are germinating close to their parent plants.

The difficulty in distinguishing individual plants from one another highlights an opportunity for genetic testing to paint a clearer picture. According to a 2021 study conducted by Chicago Botanic Garden researchers, E. furcata can form clonal patches of 100 or more stems (Gavin-Smyth et al. 2021). This leads me to believe much of the rise we see in flowering stems is due to individuals reproducing asexually.

By capturing location data for each clump we were able to relocate clumps that were previously recorded as well as distinguish newly found clumps that were not recorded in 2019. We found 33 new clumps had developed since 2019 with an average of 13.6 flowering stems per new clump.

	2019 - 2024
New Clumps	33 (N: 19, S: 14)
Average Flowering Stems/New Clump	13.6
Clumps Not Found	12

 N = clumps found on northern side of brook, S = clumps found on southern side of brook

There were 12 clumps present in 2019 that were not found in 2024. There are several threats to E. furcata at Somme Woods including but not limited to deer-browsing, shading out by trees and/or tall vegetation such as tall goldenrod (Solidago canadensis/altissima), and  genetic limitations. Perhaps the clumps simply died happily of old age, at the end of a natural lifespan. Recording field data is also subject to mistakes - it could simply be that we happened to miss some of them.

Deer and other herbivores like to eat the upper leaves and flowers 

Tall/Canada Goldenrod and patches of briars (Rubus spp.) can be seen shading out and outcompeting many native plants including Forked Aster

When comparing the data on individual clumps recorded in 2019 with the 2024 data, we see an increase in the number of flowering stems by an average of 9.3. The majority (33 out of the 38) of the historic clumps found increased in number of flowering stems with only 5 decreasing in flowering stems.

One metric we collected that hadn’t been done previously was the dimensions of each clump. In 2024, clumps had an average width of 0.9 meters and an average length of 1.4 meters. Being as this was the first year recording dimensions of clumps, this data will be more helpful as the population is monitored regularly. According to Center For Plant Conservation, the rhizomes can extend up to 40 cm from the parent plant; this was unbeknownst to me at the time of recording data and may be taken into account next year to help alleviate some of the problem of trying to distinguish between individuals.

	2019	2024
Average Distance From Brook (meters)	3.0 (N: 3.27, S: 2.56)	1.7 (N: 2.13, S: 0.9)

N = clumps on northern side of brook, S = clumps on southern side of brook

The brook serves as the fulcrum of the transect and so by measuring the distance from the edge of each clump to the bank of the brook, we were able to see that historically tracked clumps are expanding in the direction of the brook as well as producing new clumps nearer to the brook. In 2019, the average distance of a clump from the brook was 2.9 meters. In 2024, that average distance decreased to 1.6 meters. 

Several clumps measured in 2019 were seen to have extended closer to the bank of the brook. An obvious conclusion might be that the plants have an affinity toward the more moist soil of the brook. However taking into account another transect of E. furcata in Somme Woods where most of the plants were found growing in upland areas suggests that there are other factors that may be at play here. In previous years, only the distance from the bank was measured; with future monitoring that includes dimensions of clumps, we may learn that the clumps are also expanding away from the brook. Some other components that could be affecting the growth patterns of individuals in relation to the distance from the brook include canopy cover, associates, soil microbiome, and levels of disturbance. 

Also interesting is the difference of clumps’ distance from the brook in relation to whether the clump is growing north or south of the brook. Clumps growing north of the brook averaged 2.1 meters away from the brook while south clumps averaged 0.9 meters away from the brook. In general, the northern side of the brook tends to be more open with more dappled light reaching the vegetation, resulting from restoration thinning of large trees years ago. On the north side, there may be less pressure on individuals to grow towards the brook because there is more light available, as opposed to on the south side of the brook where many a Quercus rubra (Red Oak), Tilia americana (American Basswood) and other trees stand tall.

The southern side of the brook also tends to have sparser vegetation and larger patches of bare dirt than the northern side which essentially has a continuous strip of the threatened Carex bromoides, other sedges, and wet-mesic forbs.

“Clump” of E. furcata (Source: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/14423647)

By collecting data on clump dimensions, we are able to determine distances between clumps. We measured an average distance of 4.06 meters between clumps with a relatively large difference between clumps located north of the brook (average distance of 2.6 meters between clumps) and south of the brook (average distance of 6.7 meters between clumps). The south side of the brook having more distance found between clumps isn’t surprising considering there simply aren’t as many plants as on the north side of the brook for the reasons hypothesized above. Looking at how this measurement changes over time in conjunction with ongoing tree thinning along the brook will be interesting to study. 

Looking Forward

Some things I’d like to do next year when monitoring this population again to provide more accurate and supplemental data are: 

• Collect data on number of plants that set seed 
• Make note of associate species composition to look at how Eurybia competes with different associates 
• Make note of number of non-flowering stems 
• Visit South Brook after spring thaw to gain a better understanding of the hydrology of the     brook
• Participate in other E. furcata transect measurements within Somme Woods and other sites to compare how others are collecting their data and making calls about how to differentiate clumps from one another 
• Use GIS and GPS device to accurately capture location data of clumps 
• Make note of data collected amongst areas thinned and where Rubus patches are cleared and treated to gauge restoration effect on Eurybia 

Final Thoughts

I kick myself in the butt for neglecting to pay much attention in what science classes I took throughout school. Having a strong foundation of knowledge for me to reference would be very helpful in my restoration practices and studies such as this monitoring. Yet I’m not sure I would have retained much of what my science teacher taught me about phenotypic plasticity or genetic drift even had I aced all those tests and studied hard because I lacked a convincing motive to want to learn these things. 

Nowadays I find myself wanting to learn as much as I can about the natural world and all its processes and constituents. Since counting that first Eurybia patch along South Brook, my brain has bombarded me with many questions, some of which I’ve answered and others that leave me wanting to explore further. For instance, the concept of self-incompatible breeding systems and how an individual can prevent germination of pollen deposited from a different individual sharing a common S-allele. Stuff like this is still racking my brain and has humbly brought to my attention through stumbling through scientific papers my need for the foundational understanding of genetics. I’ve since been working my way through YouTube lectures and methodically reading a cell biology and genetics textbook.

Recently, I’ve been welcomed among the Somme Woods volunteer stewards to help manage the same area of the E. furcata transect. This has granted me a lot to think about in terms of how to restore this habitat and what role forked aster plays in a biodiverse woodland system. Being a part of a learning community such as the one at Somme Woods and many more across the Chicagoland area is invaluable for someone with an itch of curiosity and wanting to play a part in restoring our natural areas. 

I hope for this to be a call for others to give way to your curiosities and allow them the space and energy they need to bring about fruitful experiences and new found knowledge. There will always be many more questions than answers but by many of us making efforts to expand our scope of focus and periodically budget energy towards different domains and fields, I believe our collective understanding of ecology will be strengthened.

This is not to say that hyper-focused study is not important. It’s what has pushed the pinnacles of scientific discovery forward. However, there is value in developing a holistic view from which we look upon the world. There’s always a time and place where the scope of one’s studies will fluctuate between a level of fixation in one specific arena and one of a broader stroke where a vantage point of a bigger picture is needed. Anecdotally speaking, the more I embrace and ride out this natural fluidity of successive ideas and topics, the more I sense my curiosity being satisfied, yet continually growing with time, and providing me with new perspectives and foundational grounds from which to stand on. 

I’ve always marveled at the people whom I’ve met or read about who can reassuringly be labeled “naturalists”. Removing the romanticism attached with the idea of a “naturalist”, these are the people who have seemed to cultivate true wisdom through taking the pursuit of curiosity to its fullest extent and who have the ability to not only look at things on an organismal biologic scale but who take a step back and understand phenomena on a grander, more eco-systematic method. This kind of understanding only comes from constantly asking questions and purposefully seeking to put oneself in situations of uncertainty conducive to learning opportunities. 

Simply put, I believe we need more curious “naturalists” in this world. Everyone possesses these traits albeit across a wide gradient and perhaps what I’m trying to get at is: I both encourage and plea that more of us give weight to our curiosities and give ourselves permission to explore different avenues and dimensions of this world and to continually challenge baselines of knowledge by embracing new opportunities as they are presented without being afraid of changing courses from time to time as you never know what discoveries and experiences will come out of it.

References

Gavin-Smyth N, Kramer AT, Urbina-Casanova R, Vitt P, Fant JB (2021) Genetic rescue reduces mate limitation in a threatened, clonal, and self-incompatible plant species.Restoration Ecology, 29, e13458