When converting crop land to restored prairie, it’s always hard to predict what you’re going to get. Numerous examples prove that even when you control as many variables as possible – including soil conditions and the rate, timing, and technique of planting – no two seedings turn out alike. Sometimes, you can use hindsight to explain what happened (weather conditions, herbicide carryover, etc.) but most of the time it’s clear that we just don’t understand much of what’s happening out there.
I’ve been analyzing some data from one particular restored prairie lately, and trying to puzzle out what’s going on. In this case, the results are good – which is nice. It’d be nicer, of course, if I could explain WHY things worked so well and then replicate whatever happened…
The prairie in question was seeded with a mixture of about 200 plant species onto 69 acres of disked cropland that had been in corn the previous season. The seed was planted sporadically between December 1999 and April 2000. Wetlands were added to the site by excavating down close to groundwater and recreating the kind of swale/ridge topography that is typical of nearby Platte River meadows. Those wetlands and sandy spoil piles (ridges) were seeded with appropriate seed as well.
All of the seed was broadcast onto the site – some by fertilizer spreader and some by hand (I was experimenting) and no harrowing or packing of the soil was done. Unfortunately, this was the last year BEFORE I started keeping good records of the amount of seed from each plant species I included in the mixture, so I only have a list of the species we harvested seed from that year. What I know is that my seeding rate per acre was about 15 gallons of grass seed (mostly big warm-season natives) that was harvested by combine from nearby prairies, and about 1/2 gallon of hand-harvested forbs, grasses, and sedges. That’s roughly 12 bulk pounds of grass seed and 1/2 pound of forb (wildflower) seed per acre. I have no idea what germination rates were that year, but it was a pretty light seeding rate compared to what many others around the country use. Today, our typical mix is a little lighter on grass and includes about twice the forbs.
To cut to the results, this prairie has turned into our most diverse and showy restoration we’ve ever done. You’d never know we’d used such a light seeding rate of forbs by looking at the site now – its appearance is dominated by big showy wildflowers. By every measure I use to look at the plant communities of our restored prairies, it comes out high. I’ve found 178 plant species in the site so far, which is excellent. The mean Floristic Quality (combination of species number and “conservatism values”) is high, and still climbing rapidly. It averages twelve plant species per square meter, which is higher than most other restored or remnant prairies in the area. (Yes, I know that seems like a very low number to you eastern tallgrass prairie folks, but it’s good for out here. Don’t rain on my parade, ok?) Twelve years after it was planted, tall warm-season grass species are still not very dominant. The species found at the highest frequency is big bluestem, and it was only in about 80% of 1m2 plots stratified across the site last June. In short, it’s a beautiful prairie. And I don’t know why.
I know most of you are ITCHING to see the actual data tables and graphs, but because there are a few who aren’t, I’m including them as a PDF file, which you see by clicking here. The PDF also includes a cumulative list of plant species found in the restored prairie.
It’s particularly impressive that this seeding turned out so well, because the odds seemed stacked against it early on. It was seeded right at the beginning of a 7 year drought. The first several years were dominated (as usual) by weedy species and a few colonizing native species such as Canada wild rye and common evening primrose, but in this prairie those species remained dominant for several more years than is typical. Once other plant species started breaking through, there were few legumes present – and we don’t typically have problems establishing legumes in our prairies. Those legumes are still more scarce than in other nearby sites, but they’re increasing over time. Finally, in about its eighth season, the site stopped looking like a weed patch and matured into something that most people would recognize as a prairie.
As I’ve discussed in other blog posts, I’m still struggling to define success in our overall prairie restoration efforts, but at the scale of individual seedings, there are a couple things I look for. First, I want to see a good diversity of plant species, and I want to see that diversity sustain itself over time. Second, I don’t want to see invasive species increasing at the expense of that overall plant diversity, even as the prairie is exposed to disturbances such as drought, fire, and grazing. So far, this restored prairie passes those tests with flying colors. We’re moving toward implementing some measures of invertebrate use as well, but aren’t there yet. Initial data and observations, however, show higher butterfly abundance and diversity in this site than in other nearby restored prairies – for whatever that’s worth.
So why did this restoration turn out so well? I really have no idea. It caught a couple nice rains during its first spring, but the rest of the summer was awfully dry. The overall seeding rate for forbs was considerably lower than we use now, but I don’t know how much seed we had of individual species. I wish I understood why it has taken the big grasses so long to fill in, but I don’t. I think the delayed grass dominance probably plays a role in encouraging the abundance and diversity of wildflowers at the site, but I don’t know how to replicate it. The soils at the site are a little sandier than some of our other sites, but we’ve worked on sandier soils and had very quick grass establishment, so it seems unlikely that the sand is the key.
The vast majority of our prairie restorations turn out pretty well, but this one is extraordinary, and I can’t explain it. Was it something about our technique? Something about the weather or soil conditions? I know I should probably just be happy with the results, but I want to know WHY!
Success is sure frustrating.