A Visual Update of Wildfire Recovery at the Niobrara Valley Preserve

Back in April, I wrote about our timelapse project at The Nature Conservancy’s Niobrara Valley Preserve.  Working with Moonshell Media, we’ve got nine cameras set up around the Preserve to document changes over time as the site recovers from a major 2012 wildfire.  We only have photos from April through early July so far, but even those are very compelling.  Eventually, we’ll put together videos that will show the entire timelapse story from each camera, but I wanted to share just a few examples of what we’re seeing so far.

I’ve selected two images from each of three cameras to give you a taste for the kind of stories we’re getting from the cameras.  The first pair of images is from the north ridge of the Niobrara River where the wildfire wiped out our ponderosa pine woodland.  We set up a camera to capture a close-up view of a steep slope.  Overall, erosion is not as bad as I’d feared it might be, but there was some significant soil loss during the first several months of the 2013 growing season, especially on steeper slopes like this one.

Erosion

This photo was taken on April 28, 2013, shortly after the camera was installed.  In fact, you can see some of our footprints in the loose soil in front of the camera.  Note the location of the rocks in the image – particularly the tall one in the top left quarter of the photo.  The pine and eastern red cedar density had been high in this location prior to the wildfire, and few perennial plants were able to grow in the shade beneath them.  Because of that lack of established vegetation and the steepness of the slope, we expected to see significant erosion here.

.

erosion b

This image was taken on July 21, 2013.  Some of the rocks from the previous photo have washed downslope and out of the frame. Others have become much more exposed as soil has washed away from them.  Annual vegetation is starting to fill in the bare areas, but is still spotty, and very little – if any – perennial vegetation (grasses, forbs or shrubs) is evident.

We had some undergraduate students from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln collecting data on soil erosion and water runoff/quality this summer.  They are still analyzing data, but it’s clear that erosion was highly correlated with tree density, especially that of cedar trees.  Where the density of cedar trees was high before the fire, very little perennial vegetation grew beneath the trees, so those areas were the most prone to significant soil erosion after the fire.  The good news is that there is still sufficient soil to support vegetation growth, and there are numerous patches of perennial grasses and other plants nearby that can colonize these areas over time.

…..

The next pair of images shows a broad landscape view of recovery through the early part of the growing season.  Just as in the first pair of images, annual vegetation can be seen colonizing the bare slopes.  If you look carefully at the top right quarter of the photo you can see that the sandhills prairie and woodland along the south side of the river is greening up very well.  The woodland on that side of the river only burned intensively in a few places; for the most part, flames stayed low to the ground and didn’t impact the trees on the relatively cool, wet north-facing slopes.

Landscape

Looking downstream from the north ridge on May 24, 2013.  Some green can be seen in a few areas in the distance, mostly where tree density was low and native sedges and other grassland plants were coming back after the winter. Much of the rest of the landscape is pretty barren.

.

landscape 2

The same scene on July 3, 2013.  Annual vegetation has colonized much of the landscape, especially where topography was less steep and tree density had been lower prior to the fire.  The landscape looks lush and green in the distance, but much of that is made up of those short-lived colonizing plants, so there is a long recovery period ahead before perennials take their place.  The future of ponderosa pines on this ridge is pretty bleak for the next several decades.  A few pines survived at the very top of the ridge, but colonization from those and other locations will likely be very slow.  

Over the next decade or two, we hope to see grasses spread back across the slopes north of the river.  Those grasses will be important because they will allow us to use prescribed fire to control the eastern red cedar trees that will also be colonizing the same area.  If we don’t get sufficient grass growth, we’ll have to find other ways to control cedars, which could prove to be very difficult on those steep slopes.

….

The third pair of images comes from a camera mounted about 15 feet in the air above the sandhills prairie south of the river.  The camera is pointing straight down at an 8 foot by 10 foot patch of prairie that burned in the wildfire last year.  I am really looking forward to watching this little piece of grassland change over time – not just as it recovers from the wildfire, but also as it responds to future prescribed fires, bison grazing, and weather changes.  For now, these two images show how well the prairie plant community rebounded quickly between late April and early July, 2013.

green

This first photo was taken on April 26, 2013.  There was a little fall regrowth after the late July fire, but the ground was nearly bare through the long winter.

.

green2

This photo was taken a little more than two months later, on July 2, 2013.

The second of the two prairie images shows a wide diversity of plants growing vigorously within the 8×15 foot frame of the photo.  There are two grayish-colored plants of leadplant (Amorpha canescens) on the left and right edges of the photo, numerous purple coneflower (Echnicea angustifolia) blooming throughout the frame, and a few yellow coneflowers (Ratibida columnifera) as well.   The small silver-colored spikes throughout much of the image are wooly plantain (Plantago patagonica), an annual plant that is often abundant in sandy prairie after fire or grazing events.  The larger silver plants are white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana).  There are two species of sunflower in the photo as well, including stiff sunflower (Helianthus pauciflorus) and plains sunflower (Helianthus petiolaris), though neither was yet blooming by July 2.  I’m not sure what the blueish green grass in the photo is, but my best guess is switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), which is joined by several other grass species I can’t yet identify from the photo.

It should be fun to watch plants move in, out, and around the frame over the coming years.  Some, such as leadplant, should stay relatively stationary through time, but others -especially plants such as stiff sunflower and white sage, which can reproduce through long rhizomes – should move around quite a bit.  After the area has not been burned or grazed for a year or two, grasses will begin to dominate the frame and most of the shorter-lived plants will decrease in abundance.  However, when we burn the site again, bison will graze the area pretty intensively, knocking the vigor of perennial grasses back, and allow opportunistic plants such as annual sunflower and wooly plantain to rise up once more.  It’s one thing to track that kind of community change with data, but it will be much more interesting to see it visually.

There will be much more to come from these cameras!  While it’s useful to see paired images that show how things look differently a few months apart, videos of numerous images showing incremental change over long periods will be much better.  Those will be put together when we have more images and time to assemble the videos.  Stay tuned!

The Kind of Conferences I Learn Best From

Last week, Eliza wrote a nice post about the value of professional conferences, and how much she’s learned by attending several of them during her time as a Hubbard Fellow.  It’s great to know that she’s getting a lot out of the meetings she’s attended this year.  Coincidentally, at the time Eliza’s post came out, I was attending the 5th World Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) in Madison, Wisconsin – along with about 1,200 other people from around the world.  The conference was big enough that there were thirteen (!) concurrent sessions going on at any one time.  Topics ranged from peat moss restoration in Alberta to tiger habitat restoration in Sumatra.

The SER conference was well organized and interesting, but very different from most of the conferences I attend – including those that Eliza referenced in her post.  I think the SER conference was probably really good for scientists who wanted to get a pulse on the research going on around the world and pick up ideas for future research of their own.  However, as someone who actually restored and manages land, my main objective was to find ideas I could bring home and apply to our sites.  Because of the size and breadth of the conference, I found it difficult to figure out which presentations to attend; most of the talks were from habitat types other than mine and it was hard to decipher which might have themes that would fit with our work.  I ended up spending quite a bit of time in the hallways, talking with other attendees with interests similar to mine – and learning a great deal from them.

Wandering around the huge conference center last week made me consider what I really appreciate about the smaller applied conferences and workshops I attend – and often help organize.  Here is a list of attributes that I find valuable at those kinds of events.  Some of these attributes are probably good for any conference, butI think they are particularly important for those of us directly involved in land management and restoration.

1. Comfortable group size.  I like meetings at which I have a decent chance of meeting a majority of participants, or at least knowing something about who they are and what they do.  That helps me find people I might want to talk to and learn from, and also makes group discussions possible and effective.  I think meetings of 80 people or less are ideal.

This year's Grassland Restoration Network workshop was hosted by the Missouri Department of Conservation.  The attendance was strong, but still small enough that it was possible to meet and talk with a majority of them during the workshop.

This year’s Grassland Restoration Network workshop was hosted by the Missouri Department of Conservation. The attendance was strong, but the group small enough that it was possible to meet and talk with a majority of them during the workshop.

2. Narrow Focus.  It’s nice to know that a high percentage of presentations I listen to are going to be relevant to my work.  Two of my favorite gatherings each year are those of the Grassland Restoration Network and the Patch-Burn Grazing Working Group because both are focused on activities I’m very involved in.  While their ranges of subject matter are relatively narrow, both of those meetings include participants from across a large geographic area, with a wide variety of perspectives and experiences I can learn from.

3. Lots of discussion time.  At many conferences, presentations are typically limited to 15-20 minute time slots and although presenters are encouraged to leave time for questions at the end, they rarely do.  Even when there is time, it’s not discussion time, but rather a couple of quick clarification questions.  I like sessions in which there is a short presentation (or two) of thought-provoking ideas or examples, followed by a well-facilitated group discussion that brings out innovative thoughts and questions from audience and presenters alike.  Many times, those kinds of discussions generate ideas far different – and more interesting – than what the presenters started talking about.

4. Effective field trips.  I learn best when I can see what someone’s site really looks like, and evaluate the impacts of their work firsthand.  The best field trips are those during which the trip host takes us not just to places where their work has been very successful, but also where things have not turned out at as they’d hoped.  Seeing both the good and the bad, and having honest thoughtful discussions (in the field) about those is incredibly useful, and generates ideas I can bring back home and use.  I also appreciate field trips that allow participants to wander away from the vehicles a little and explore, instead of just loading us into vehicles as soon as the host is done talking.

Patch

Participants of this year’s Patch-Burn Grazing Working Group meeting walk across The Nature Conservancy’s 7-mile Fen in western South Dakota.  This was one of two half-day field trips we went on during the conference, and the hosts did a great job of showing us results of their efforts, but also giving us time to explore and evaluate the site ourselves.

5. Plenty of time and space for informal networking.  Conferences and workshops I help organize typically schedule plenty of time to just sit around and talk informally.  It’s really frustrating to go to a conference that is scheduled from dawn to dusk with events and presentations, leaving no time for getting to know other participants.  Much of what I learn from group meetings comes from side discussions during which I can really get to know someone and learn about their experiences.  The benefits of that informal time extend beyond the conference as well because I come home with a list of people I can call in the future when I have a question or idea on a particular topic.

Informal discussion time, whether in the field or indoors, is often the most valuable part of any conference.  This conversation - during the 2013 Grassland Restoration Network - occurred during some free time on a field trip.

Informal discussion time, whether in the field or indoors, is often the most valuable part of any conference. This conversation – during the 2013 Grassland Restoration Network – occurred during some free time on a field trip.

6. Presentations that focus on a lesson or message rather than statistical methods.  In graduate school, students are usually taught to give presentations that follow the format of a scientific journal article: introduction, methods, results, discussion.  When giving a thesis defense presentation to get your degree, that’s probably appropriate.  However, at a conference with others who want to learn about your project, spending most of your allotted time talking about how you set up your project and analyzed your data is worse than useless.  The most useful presentations focus on the results and how they fit into the larger context of a topic.  If I want to know what statistics you used to analyze your data, I’ll ask you at another time or read the publication you’ll eventually write.  Tell me what you learned and why it’s interesting and important.

7. An accessible price.  When I help organize workshops and conferences, keeping the cost of attendance down is a top priority.  Most of the attendees at our meetings are land managers or scientists that work for state agencies or non-profit conservation organizations, and both money and time are tight.  It’s hard enough to convince people to leave their sites and task lists for a couple days.  Making them pay high registration fees in addition to hotel and travel costs is an unnecessary barrier to their attendance.  We can’t do anything about travel costs to get to the meeting, but we work hard to find conference centers and lodging options that are low cost.  Often, those lower cost meeting locations tend to facilitate better informal interactions anyway.

This is the kind of conference venue I like best...

This is the kind of conference venue I like best…

I was grateful for the opportunity to attend the SER conference in Madison last week, and I got the chance to meet some new friends and catch up with some old ones.  However, the conference also gave me a chance to compare and contrast meeting styles and think about what attributes are important to me.  I’m curious to hear what you think on this topic.

….

P.S. I have one request to anyone who talks about ecological restoration.  Can we please agree to stop using the phrase “If you build it, they will come”?

Seriously.  Thank you.