What I Look For When I Walk Through My Prairies

Back in August, I posted some questions to readers about what they look for when evaluating their own prairies.  I got some excellent responses, which I really appreciated.  If you missed them, you can re-read that post and those comments here.

Walking around a prairie and getting a read on what's happening is probably the most important part of prairie management.  This is Scott Moats, The Nature Conservancy's Broken Kettle Grasslands, Iowa.

Walking around a prairie and getting a read on what’s happening is probably the most important part of prairie management. Scott Moats, The Nature Conservancy’s Broken Kettle Grasslands, Iowa.

As a follow up to that, here is more detail about what I think about as I walk around my family prairie, or one of our Platte River Prairies.  Of course, sometimes I just hike around and enjoy the day, but this post is about what I focus on when I’m evaluating our management and considering ideas for next steps.  We collect some relatively formal data on some sites, but most of our management decisions are really based on the kind of observation and evaluation I lay out here.  I’m certainly not trying to talk you into doing exactly what I’m doing – especially because what I look for is tied to my particular objectives, not yours.  Instead, I’m hoping that I might spark some ideas you can incorporate into your own decision making processes.

To start with, the basic objective at both my own prairie and those I help manage professionally is the same.  I want to provide a shifting mosaic of habitat structure patches (short, tall, mixed-height, etc.) so that the quilt pattern of those patches looks different each year.  I assume that a dynamic management regime like that will support high plant diversity because it doesn’t allow static conditions that allow a few plant species to become dominant.  I also assume that those shifting habitat patches will facilitate a healthy community of insects, birds, mammals, reptiles, and other life – above and below ground.  These are not blind assumptions; they are based on my own experience and research, along with that of many others.  (You can read more about those assumptions here.)

Grazing can create very important habitat structure such as this short grass/tall forb habitat at our Platte River Prairies.

Grazing can create very important habitat structure, including this short grass/tall forb habitat at our Platte River Prairies.  This habitat allows for easy movement along the ground, but provides plenty of overhead cover as protection from predators and the hot sun.

Not surprisingly, the first thing I look for, then, as I walk around a prairie is the pattern of habitat structure.  I hope to find the full range of variation, from tall and dense vegetation to almost bare ground.  Even more importantly, I want to see some of the important intermediate habitat types – especially short-cropped grass with tall forbs (wildflowers), which is incredibly important for many wildlife and insect species.  If I can find all of those habitat types, and they’re in different places than they were last year, I feel pretty good.

Next, I look at the plant community.  Plant diversity is an important foundation for invertebrate and wildlife diversity, so I want to see a rich diversity of plants as I walk around.  I also want to see that diversity at both large and small scales.  Across the whole prairie, I’d hope to find at least 100-200 plant species (though I certainly don’t count them every time) but I should also be able to count at least 10-15 plant species within arms’ reach if I kneel on the ground.  These numbers vary, of course, based on geography, soil type, etc., so they may or may not be reasonable at your particular site.

As I look at plant diversity, I want to see habitat patches with an abundance of “opportunistic” plants.  These are species that thrive in the absence of competition.  Depending upon your point of view, you might also call them “colonizers” or even “weeds”, but when they are abundant, it means that nearby dominant plants have been weakened.  We try to periodically knock back the vigor of dominant plants (especially grasses) through fire, grazing or mowing, to help less dominant plants maintain a foothold in the plant community.  A flush of opportunistic plants is an indicator of success because it shows that we successfully opened up that space and other plants are taking advantage of it – and not just the weedy ones.  Finding seed heads, and even new seedlings, of slower-to-colonize plant species (purple prairie clover, entire-leaf rosinweed, leadplant, etc.) within those weedy patches makes me feel even better.

Black-eyed susan  is a showy example of an opportunistic plant species that thrives when surrounding vegetation is weakened.  Other species I look for include ragweeds, hoary vervain, annual sunflowers, ironweed, ragwort, annual thistles, and many others.

Black-eyed susan is a showy example of an opportunistic plant species that thrives when surrounding vegetation is weakened. Other  opportunists I look for include ragweeds, hoary vervain, annual sunflowers, ironweed, ragwort, annual thistles, and many others.

In sites where cattle are present, I spend time looking at what they’re eating and not eating, as well as which parts of the prairie are being grazed most and least.  In our patch-burn grazed prairies, we expect most grazing to take place in recently-burned areas, so I check to see if that’s happening.  Often, cattle target their favorite grass species first and then graze wildflowers only if they’ve already eaten the best parts of those grasses.  If I see something other than that pattern, it can tell me a lot about our stocking rate or other issues – not necessarily in a bad way.  There are also a few plant species that our cattle can’t seem to resist (some milkweeds, rosinweed, Canada milkvetch, and spiderworts) and we like to make sure those species get a release from grazing pressure every few years.  As a result, I pay special attention to whether or not – and how intensively – those plants are being grazed.  If I notice that they haven’t been allowed to grow and bloom for a few years, it’s time to change up our management and give them a rest.

The other group of plant species I look closely at is invasive species.  At our sites, invasive grasses such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue, and others get special attention because of their ability to form monocultures, but there are plenty of others to watch as well.  I look not only at the current abundance and density of invasive plants, but also compare what I’m seeing to previous years to see how things are changing.  Finally, I pay attention to whether or not there are conditions that appear to be giving invaders an advantage.  For example, it would be important to know if cattle are grazing all the plants EXCEPT those invaders, allowing them to encroach upon weakened competition.

Siberian elm trees are a major pest in our prairies, and one we track closely and try to keep up with.

Siberian elm trees are a major pest in our prairies, and we have to be careful not to fall too far behind in our control efforts.

Field notes and photos are really helpful when trying to decide whether populations of invasive species are expanding or not.  They can also be helpful when comparing grazing impacts, responses from opportunistic plants, and other interesting phenomena.  I sometimes flip back to last year’s notes while I’m in the field to see if there’s anything I saw then that I should pay attention to.  Then, when I periodically enter my field notes into the computer, I can look at all the notes from other years and look for patterns.  I don’t take extensive field notes, but try to write enough to be useful.  (See here for more on field notes).

As I continue to learn more about the way various animal and invertebrate species see and utilize prairie habitat, I’ve gotten better at looking our prairies through the eyes of those species.  I wrote about wearing “bee goggles” a while ago, but I also try to step back and think about what life would be like in our prairies if I was a grasshopper, mouse, coyote, or other species.  Could I find food all year round?  Are there places to feed/hunt or hide/escape?  If the habitat I’m living in changed dramatically because of fire or grazing, would I be able to find and travel to other habitat nearby?  It’s a really interesting exercise, and helps me think about habitat needs in new ways.

Looking at a prairie through (cute!) eyes of bees or other species is a great way to broaden your perspective.

Looking at a prairie through the eyes of bees or other species is a great way to broaden your perspective.

Finally, I try to look across the fences and note what is happening on neighboring lands.  In some cases, the prairie I’m walking in is the only real prairie habitat in the neighborhood, so it really needs to provide everything for every species living in it.  In other cases, there is more grassland habitat nearby, and I can think about how our prairie can help supplement and complement what’s available in those other sites.  For example, if all the neighbors graze pretty intensively, I might prioritize tall vegetation structure a little more than if that was the predominant habitat in the neighborhood.

So there you go – a quick look inside my head, for what that’s worth.  As I said at the beginning, what you look for should be tied to your objectives, but I also enjoy tagging along when other prairie managers walk their sites because I learn a lot from how they think.  I’d love to hear how similar or different my thought processes are from yours.

Making Smart Assumptions about Prairie Management

Some people say it’s dangerous to make assumptions.  I disagree.  In fact, assumptions are both necessary and empowering.  Land managers make assumptions all the time.  If we didn’t, we’d never get anything done.

Assumptions are only dangerous when they are either unrecognized or untested.  For example, it’s reasonable for me to assume that my car’s engine has an adequate amount of oil in it, but it would be irresponsible not to check the level now and then to be sure.  Without the assumption that I still had oil, I’d probably stop to check my oil every mile or so and I’d never get anywhere.  In order to move forward, I have to make reasonable assumptions, including that my engine hasn’t lost all of its oil since the last time I checked it.

As land managers, we have to take a similar approach.  Much of the time, we assume that species and ecological systems are reacting predictably and positively to our management, but we also do spot checks to reassure ourselves.  Often those evaluations involve nothing more than a walk through a prairie to see how things are looking, but in some cases might conduct more intensive data collection.

Sometimes rigorous data collection is used to test assumptions, but other times the process can be much more informal.

Sometimes rigorous data collection is used to test assumptions, but other times the process can be much more informal.

Land managers also make broader assumptions about how restoration or management projects will contribute to conservation objectives.  As we plan projects, we make educated guesses that help us design our work effectively.  Then we implement the project and see what happens.  If we didn’t make assumptions, we’d be paralyzed by indecision and never get anything done.

It is critically important, however to recognize what assumptions we’re making, and to test them when we have the chance.  Here are several examples of assumptions we make in our Platte River Prairies management, and some of the ways we’re testing them.

Assumption #1.  Prairie plants can survive periodic intensive grazing.

Grazing is an important part of our management.  Most commonly, we employ variations of patch-burn grazing, in which a portion of a prairie is grazed pretty intensively for most of one growing season and then allowed to recover for a couple years before it’s intensively grazed again.  We use grazing to manipulate plant competition, especially by suppressing the vigor of dominant grasses to produce more plant diversity.  It also is our primary tool for creating heterogeneous habitat structure, including important habitat conditions (such as short grass/tall forbs) that are difficult or impossible to create without grazing.

Selective grazing by cattle can have positive impacts on both plant diversity and wildlife habitat.  These cattle at Konza Prairie in Kansas are grazing on primarily grass and leaving plants such as leadplant and purple prairie clover ungrazed.

Selective grazing by cattle can have positive impacts on both plant diversity and wildlife habitat. These cattle at Konza Prairie in Kansas are grazing on primarily grass and leaving plants such as leadplant and purple prairie clover ungrazed.

Our data show that overall plant diversity is thriving under our management, and it’s easy to see the variety of habitat conditions we create each year.  However, we’re making the assumption that we’re not losing any plant species due to periodic intensive grazing.  It’s an informed assumption, based on experience and our understanding of history, including the kind of fire/grazing interactions that happened in these prairies over the last several thousand years.  Regardless, it’s an assumption, and one we need to test.

We collect annual data from some prairies and less frequent data from others that allow us to track individual plant species over time.  So far, we’ve not seen any indication of plant species that are disappearing under our management.  Even if we weren’t rigorously collecting data, we could still test our assumption by simply tracking the population size of species most likely to be impacted by grazing.  We could use techniques such as photopoints or walking transects, or we could just mark and watch individuals or patches of plants over time.

Data

An example of the kind of data that helps us evaluate the impacts of repetitive grazing on plant species.  Data from one of our restored prairies shows plant species that have maintained populations through 13 years of patch-burn grazing.  The data represent the frequency of occurrence for each species within approximately 100 plots (1 square meter plots).  From top to bottom, the common names of the species shown are Stiff Sunflower, Maximilian Sunflower, Illinois Bundleflower, Purple Prairie Clover, and White Prairie Clover.

Assumption #2.  Some exotic/invasive species are not harmful enough to warrant eradication efforts.

We have more than enough invasive species to deal with on our sites, so we have to be selective about which to spend most of our time on.  We set priorities based on experience, and focus most on those species we think have the greatest potential to harm plant diversity or habitat quality.  However, we recognize that our assumptions about impacts could be wrong, so we test them – both through general observation and data collection.  I’ve written before about data we’ve collected on both Kentucky bluegrass and sweetclover impacts, for example.

Assumption #3.  Restoring cropland adjacent to a small prairie will increase its conservation value.

The prairie restoration work we do is not focused on re-creating historic landscapes, but on trying to decrease the impacts of habitat fragmentation.  We assume that adding diverse prairie plantings around and between isolated prairie fragments will increase population size and connectivity for plants, insects, mammals, birds, reptiles, and more.  Bigger and more interconnected populations should be more viable than smaller and isolated populations.

Our assumption seems reasonable, but it’s expensive to harvest and plant more than 200 plant species in a crop field, so we need to see if we’re actually achieving our objective.  More importantly, we need to be able to show policy makers that this kind of strategy produces substantial ecological impacts.  Unfortunately, this kind of assumption is logistically difficult to test.

We have a long way to go, but we’re starting to look at whether various species living in our unplowed prairies are also found in adjacent restored prairies.  If those species aren’t using the new habitat, our strategy isn’t helping them.  If they are, that’s good to know – though there are still more assumptions to test (e.g., do those new habitats facilitate successful breeding and/or migration and colonization?).  So far, some preliminary investigations indicate that most ant and bee species appear to use restored habitats, and we’re now looking at small mammals and grasshoppers as well.

ENPO130528_D023

Bees seem to readily use the restored prairie habitats we create around and between formerly-isolated prairies. However, we are still evaluating bees and many other species to see how effective our restoration work has been.

 

Assumption #4.  We can maintain healthy populations of all prairie species through our “shifting mosaic” approach to wildlife habitat management.

This is a big one, and is very difficult to test.  We assume that by creating a variety of habitat conditions each year – including tall/dense, short/sparse, and mixed-height vegetation – all of the species in our prairies (insects, mammals, birds, plants, etc.) can find what they need each year.  On top of that, we’re assuming that as we shift the location of habitat conditions between years, species can either move to appropriate habitat or hunker down until better conditions cycle back through.

As with our assumption about plants and grazing, historical context applies.  Prairie species evolved in grasslands that were subjected to fire, grazing, and drought, and preferred habitat conditions for any particular species would have shifted around the landscape from year to year.  However, much is different today, including the size and fragmentation of grasslands, the presence of invasive species, and much more.  Are today’s species able to survive significant variations in habitat conditions from year to year?  Can a species that needs thatchy cover successfully find more of that habitat after a fire burns through its current location?  If so, how far can it travel, and through what kinds of habitats?

Red

How easily can a species such as the red-sided garter snake find new habitat after a fire or other management treatment makes its current habitat unsuitable?

We haven’t gotten as far in testing this assumption as we have with some others, but we think a lot about it.  We’ve been gleaning information on animal movement from the scientific literature, and will meet with university scientists next month to discuss potential collaborative research on this topic.  Most importantly, we recognize that we are making some big assumptions about our management strategies, and we keep those assumptions in mind as we make our annual plans.  For example, we try to think about factors such as travel distance between similar habitat types (tall/dense or short/sparse habitats, for example) and we try to leave unburned refuges within large burn units.  Hopefully, we’ll get more guidance soon, but in the meantime, we’re moving forward the best we can.

Just as I watch for signs that my car’s engine might be getting low on oil as I drive, I also watch for signs that our land management strategies are working as we want them to.  (More on that in an upcoming post.)  Recognizing the assumptions we’re making is a critical piece of successful management, but testing those assumptions is just as important.  Assumption testing doesn’t have to involve intensive data collection; it can be as simple as making some annual notes about whether or not a particular patch of wildflowers is still there, or keeping track of how invasive species respond to various management treatments.  If we know what we’re uncertain of, we’ll be more thoughtful about management decisions and more observant of their impacts.

What assumptions are you making?  Are you working to test them?

…oh, and don’t forget to check your oil now and then.