Assessing Prairie Restoration Through the Eyes of Small Mammals – Part 1

We’ve taken another step in the right direction…

Over the last several years, we’ve begun to evaluate our prairie restoration work beyond just looking at plant communities.  Our primary objective for restoration is to functionally enlarge and reconnect fragmented remnant (unplowed) prairies by restoring the land parcels around and between them.   (See more on that topic here.)  Because of that, it’s pretty important that we look at whether or not species – plant and animal – living in those remnant prairies are actually using and moving through our restored prairies.   In 2012, we brought James Trager and Mike Arduser to our Platte River Prairies to help us start measuring our success in terms of ants and bees, respectively.  We’re still early in that effort, but things look good for both so far.  Most ant and bee species living in our prairie remnants are also showing up in nearby restored prairies.

A deer mouse peers out of the thatch.

A deer mouse peers out of the thatch.

Now we’re hoping to find similar patterns with small mammals.  Mike Schrad, a Nebraska Master Naturalist, has volunteered to help us see whether the small mammal species in our remnant prairies are also in adjacent restored prairies.  We’ve begun by looking at a single 200 acre prairie complex that consists of a remnant prairie surrounded by several restored prairies (former crop fields seeded with 150 or more plant species back in the mid-1990’s).  Mike came out for three nighttime sampling periods in 2013 to see what he could catch in the remnant prairie and one of the adjacent restored prairies.

Mike and I have been looking over the data from this first year, and I’m pretty encouraged by what he’s found so far.  He caught four species in the remnant prairie, and all four were also in the adjacent restored prairie.  In addition, a fifth species, the short-tailed shrew, was caught only in the restored area – but only once.  The five mammal species he caught were:

Prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster)

Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)

Harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys sp.)

Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)

Short-tailed shrew (Blarina hylophaga)

The relative abundance data for each species caught by site are interesting (see the table below), and reflect the fact that the sites had been largely rested from fire and grazing during the last couple of years.  Voles are attracted to the kind of thatchy grassland habitat found in ungrazed/unburned prairie, and they were caught more often than any other species in our site.  The higher numbers of voles in the remnant prairie might indicate a more dense vegetation structure there than in the restored prairie (or might have just been happenstance).  It was also interesting to see more harvest mice caught in the restored prairie, though the total numbers were low enough that we aren’t drawing any strong conclusions from them.  The total number of animals caught by species and site are below:

2013 Data

On the one hand, seeing the same species in both remnant and restored prairie might not seem very surprising.  Our restored prairies have the same plant species in them as the remnant prairies, and are managed the same way.  It seems likely that small mammals can find everything they need for food and shelter there.  On the other hand, it’s dangerous to blindly assume that we’re providing for the needs of all species when we restore prairies.  The mouse and vole species we saw this year have been pretty well studied, but we still don’t know everything about what they need to survive.  What looks like two identical habitats to us might be very different to a 2 inch tall little critter.  For those reasons, it’s nice to see some support for our assumptions – though we still need much more data.

Mike Schrad records data from one of his trapping efforts.  Mike is a Nebraska Master Naturalist, one of many volunteers being deployed around the state to help with conservation and science projects.

Mike Schrad records data from one of his trapping efforts. Mike is a Nebraska Master Naturalist, one of many volunteers being deployed around the state to help with conservation and science projects.

Over the next month or two, Mike and I will be planning future sampling efforts.  Ideally, we’ll repeat the same kind of trapping he did in 2013, but do so at other sites were we have adjacent remnant and restored prairies.  If we continue to see the same pattern of use – the species in the remnant prairie also using adjacent restored prairie – I’ll start to feel even better about our ability to defragment prairies from a small mammals’ perspective.

However, even if we continue to see results similar to this year, there will be more to learn.  First, there are several less common species of small mammals in our prairies (we think) that weren’t caught this year.  Two of those are plains pocket mouse and plains harvest mouse, both of which could be in our upland areas and are priority conservation species in Nebraska.  Another is Franklin’s ground squirrel, a species we see periodically in our lowlands, but which has disappeared from most tallgrass prairies in the eastern U.S.  I’d like to know that we’re creating habitat for those less common species, as well as for the common ones we caught this year.

There is still a lot to learn about how well our restored prairies are working.  However, with each step we take, I feel a little better about our ability to reduce the impacts of habitat fragmentation by restoring strategic parcels around and between prairie fragments.  Knowing we can do it doesn’t make it economically or socially feasible, but those other factors are irrelevant if we can’t solve the technical issues first – and prove that we’ve done so.

One step at a time…

Photo of the Week – January 16, 2014

Here’s a photograph I took a couple years ago while hiking at Griffith Prairie – a site north of Aurora, Nebraska that’s owned and managed by the Prairie Plains Resource Institute.

Sunrise at Griffith Prairie - Hamilton County, Nebraska.

Setting sun at Griffith Prairie – Hamilton County, Nebraska.

I like the image, in part, because it shows what that evening looked and felt like as the sun dropped to the horizon.  What you see in the photograph is pretty much what my eyes saw.  However, it does NOT look like the image that came out of my camera.  I had to use image-processing software to alter the image so it looked like it did in real life.

In this image, I set the camera so that the grass would be correctly exposed, knowing that the sky would be overexposed (too bright).

For this image, I adjusted my camera’s settings so that the grass would be correctly exposed (not too bright or dark), knowing that the sky would be overexposed (too bright).

A camera’s sensor makes photographs by capturing reflected light from a scene.  However, a sensor is not able to record the same range of light (from bright to dark) as the human eye.  The same is true with film.  That means that in the above image, although my eye could see all the colors and details in both the sky and the ground, the camera was unable to capture both.  Either the sky was going to be bright and washed out or the ground was going to be way too dark.  Neither of those was an acceptable option to me.

In this photo, I set the camera to capture the sky as it looked, knowing that the ground was going to be very dark.

In this photo, I set the camera to capture the sky as it looked to my eye, knowing that the ground was going to be very dark.

I ended up shooting the scene a couple ways, figuring I’d try to fix it later.  I later used the second image (the one with the really dark ground) as a starting point and used Adobe Photoshop to lighten the ground and bring out the details and colors my eye saw but that the camera couldn’t capture.  There are two ways to look at this.  The first is that I used the tools at my disposal to make the image match what I saw in real life.  The other is that I essentially lied to you by altering the image that came out of the camera.

If you don’t like what I did and feel like I lied to you, consider this…  Nearly every photo you’ve seen in any printed form has been manipulated, regardless of the era it was printed in.  Old time black and white photographers spent hours adjusting the tone of various parts of their photos as they created prints.  When you take a roll of film or a batch of digital photos to get printed, the printing machine makes automatic adjustments to the images as it prints them – or the technician can override those with his/her own adjustments.  There is really no escaping the fact that photography is art, and that much of the artistic interpretation takes place after the photo is taken.

While photography is art, I’m a scientist trying to share my experiences in the natural world with others, so I feel an obligation to represent things accurately.  That puts me in an interesting position.  Do I avoid processing photos in order to show the viewer exactly what my camera captured – even if that image doesn’t accurately reflect the image I saw in real time?  Or do I manipulate the photo to make it look like it did in real life, even if that necessarily means I’m putting my own translation of reality into that image?

I’m not sure there’s a right answer, but I generally choose to process images and attempt to show you what I saw through my eyes.  I want you to see the same prairies I see in the hope that you will better understand and appreciate them.

Here’s the final version of the image one more time.  Do you like it more or less, knowing what went on behind the curtain?

The final version of the photograph one more time.

This is the same image of Griffith Prairie shown at the beginning of this post.