Photo of the Week – January 6, 2012

You might recognize the background of this photo from the Photo of the Week back on December 23.  Sorry about the duplication, but I really liked this image – and it’s been too warm to get any recent ice or snow photos…

More importantly, I thought it’d be a great “guess this species” image for those of you that like that kind of thing.  Can you identify the tall plant in the photo?

Can you identify the tall plant in this photo? Click on the photo to get a sharper version of the image.

I’ll put the name of the plant species in the comments section below (if you can’t see the comments at the bottom of this post, click on the title and then check again.)

Need a hint?  The photo was taken in a restored (reconstructed) sand prairie along the central Platte River in Nebraska.  The plant has a range of occurrence that spans the center 1/3 or so of the United States.  Oh, and it’s an annual…

Good luck!

Correction – Tree Invasion

Thank you to a couple people, particularly Dan Carter, for pointing out an inaccuracy in my last post about woody expansion in prairies.  In my second paragraph, I said that woody plants had expanded in Konza Prairie (Kansas) under annual fire.  That’s not correct.  Woody plant abundance has actually changed little in annually burned prairie units, but abundance has increased dramatically in units burned at 4 year intervals (and at longer intervals).  I’ve corrected that text now, but wanted to let everyone know about it.

I don’t think this changes anything else in my post.  Changes in fire frequency alone are unlikely to be the sole reason that woody plant expansion appears to be more rapid now than several decades ago.  I’m sure I’m not the only one who has observed smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) increasing under 3-year fire frequencies, for example.  In addition, I know of prairies that went through decades without any fire at all and didn’t appear to experience rapid woody plant expansion until the 1970’s or later.  It’s a big and complicated puzzle.

Regardless, the text in the post should now be correct!

If you haven’t done so, I’d encourage you to go back and read the many comments attached to the initial post.  There are some excellent responses and ideas from a number of readers.