Measuring Our Influence as Conservation Scientists

I am a conservation scientist.  Like any other scientist, I develop and test hypotheses, trying to figure out how the world works.  Once I learn something, I publish my results in academic journals where other scientists can evaluate and build upon what I’ve learned.  Because I’m a conservation scientist, however, I also need make sure the people who directly impact prairie conservation (ranchers, land managers, policy makers, etc.) get my information and use it to improve the way grasslands are managed and restored.  If I fail to influence the actions of others in positive ways, I fail as a conservation scientist.

It doesn’t matter how much we learn about employing prescribed fire effectively if we’re not able to help others use the lessons we learn.

In science, keen observational skills and creativity often spark innovations, but rigorous collection of data is required to see whether a great idea actually makes sense or not.  While I’ve had some good ideas, I’ve also come up with plenty of grassland management and restoration strategies that turned out to be duds.  In each case, I learned a little more about prairie ecology and our land stewardship improved as a result.

I’m proud of the work I’ve done over the years to develop new and better ways of restoring and managing prairies.  I know those strategies are effective because I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time testing them, through both observation and rigorous data collection.  My computer is full of spreadsheets and graphs showing how prairie species and communities respond to various treatments.

I’m also proud of the work I’ve done to share what we’ve learned with others, but until recently, I’ve done very little to evaluate the effectiveness of that work.  I’m not alone – most of my colleagues in the world of conservation science do a great job of measuring the natural world and its responses to human activities, but do very little to evaluate whether their work is actually influencing conservation.  It’s fairly ridiculous when you think about it.  We would never think of devoting ourselves to a new invasive species control technique without testing its effectiveness, but for some reason we’re satisfied to rely on blind optimism that our outreach strategies are changing the world.

Come on, folks!  We’re scientists!  We love data, and we’re good at developing and testing ideas.  Why do we apply that passion and aptitude to only part of our work?  Why aren’t we testing whether our ideas are reaching the intended audience and influencing on-the-ground conservation work?  How can we adjust and improve our outreach strategies if we don’t have any data to work from?

To be fair, measuring outreach impacts requires a very different kind of scientific approach than most of us are comfortable with.  Instead of counting plants or observing behavior of birds, bees or bison, we have to assess the attitudes, motivations, and actions of people. Many of us took our career paths because we prefer the company of birds, bees and bison to people, but that doesn’t give us leave to just ignore people altogether – especially when the success or failure of our work hinges upon their actions.

Fortunately, we don’t have to work alone.  There are lots of scientists who are already good at studying people, and many of them are happy to work with us.  I’ve had very enthusiastic responses from those I’ve asked advice from, and their input has been very helpful.

We should probably take some of the energy we spend studying animals and put it towards studying the way people respond to our outreach efforts.

Whether you’re a scientist who actively shares your results with your target audience, or someone who relies on others to translate and transmit that information, there are some basic questions we should all be trying to address.  This is far from a comprehensive list, but it’s a start.

Defining Audience and Message

What lessons and messages from my work are most important?

Who is the audience for those?

What messengers/media will best reach the audiences?

What are the current attitudes/actions of my audience?  What are the main drivers of those those attitudes and actions?

Who are the credible voices my audience looks to for guidance?

How can I reach those credible voices?

Evaluating Success

Are my messages reaching my target audience?

How many people in that audience am I reaching?

Are my messages changing attitudes and/or actions?

At what scale, and to what degree am I making a difference?

Which messages, messengers, and media are most effective for reaching each of my audiences?

Many of us host field days, at which we can share what we’re learning with others.  How many of us are assessing the effectiveness of those field days and other outreach strategies?

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about audiences and messages, and it’s really helped me focus both my research and outreach more effectively.  Recently, I’ve also started trying to answer some of the questions in the above “Evaluating Success” category.  I’m making some progress, but I need to do much more.

I can tell you how many presentations I’ve given over the last two years (40) and how many people were in those audiences (3,447).  I’ve also been keeping track of calls and emails asking for advice on prairie restoration and management.  Unfortunately, while I have a lot of numbers, I can’t easily translate them into acres of improved management or enhanced habitat quality.

I have, however, made at least some progress toward measuring conservation impact on the ground.  Much of that success came from survey work by one of our first Hubbard Fellows, Eliza Perry.  Eliza conducted interviews with some land managers and private lands biologists who had attended field days at our Platte River Prairies.  Among her many findings were that almost all respondents said what they learned from us had influenced their work, and they conservatively estimated that over 330,000 acres of land had been restored or managed differently because of that influence.  Beyond that, Eliza was able to identify key factors that led to our success and suggest ways to improve our effectiveness.

In addition, Eliza surveyed readers of The Prairie Ecologist Blog and I conducted a follow-up survey three years later.  Those surveys helped quantify the demographics of readers (e.g., about 2/3 of respondents have direct influence on prairie management).  The surveys also measured the degree of influence the blog has on readers’ understanding of prairies and approach to managing or restoring prairies (when applicable).  We even got a rough estimate of the number of acres on which management had been influenced by the blog (over 300,000).

Being able to quantify outreach impact, even when the numbers are fuzzy and incomplete, has been really helpful.  It helps me justify my job, for one thing, and assures both me and my supervisor that the time I spend writing, giving presentations, and consulting with others has value.  Most importantly, it helps me assess what is and isn’t working and adjust accordingly.

While it’s still not fully within my comfort zone, I’m trying hard to make sure I’m measuring the effectiveness of our outreach efforts, just as I do our prairie management and restoration work.  I would love to hear from people who are trying to do the same thing, especially if you’ve found effective evaluation strategies.  As more of us focus on measuring the success of our outreach work, we’ll be able to learn from each other and establish some common metrics.  Hopefully, we’ll also become more effective at translating what we’re learning into large scale and meaningful conservation impact!

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.

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…

Report from the 2013 Grassland Restoration Network Workshop – Part 1

The Grassland Restoration Network’s annual workshop took place a couple weeks ago in Columbia, Missouri.  This year’s workshop was hosted by the Missouri Department of Conservation and included more than 90 people from around the country.  As always, the meeting was a mixture of presentations, discussions, and field tours, and was informal enough that we had plenty of time to get to know each other and catch up on what everyone has been learning at their own sites.  There were too many topics and discussions from the workshop to cover in a single blog post, so I’ll spread them out over the next several weeks or months.

Attendees of the Grassland Restoration Network's annual workshop at Tucker Prairie, east of Columbia, Missouri.
Attendees of the Grassland Restoration Network’s annual workshop at Tucker Prairie, east of Columbia, Missouri.

One of the most intriguing discussions of the workshop was an extended conversation during our field trip to the 711 acre Prairie Fork Conservation Area, managed by Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC).  At several points during the trip, we talked about objectives for restoration projects and prairie plantings.  Here in the Platte River Prairies, our restoration objective is to use prairie plantings to enlarge and reconnect fragmented remnant prairies – hoping to increase overall ecological resilience and the viability of populations of plants, bees, etc.  At Prairie Fork, however, there are no remnant prairies to stitch together, and education is a major focus of their restoration project.  Their stated restoration goal is simply to rebuild natural communities and their processes.  Then they use those restored areas as platforms for their education work.

Although Prairie Fork Conservation Area is not far from Tucker Prairie – the last remnant of the once vast Grand Prairie that stretched across a large swath of Missouri – MDC staff are not trying to design their plantings to mimic Tucker Prairie.  Instead, they are harvesting seed from Tucker prairie and other small scattered areas of native prairie vegetation to create seed mixtures that are a composite of all of those sites.  As a result, prairie plantings are allowed to develop into communities as local site conditions allow – a very sensible approach.

Rattlesnake master is common at Tucker Prairie, the last sizeable remnant of the Grand Prairie that used to cover a large portion of northern Missouri.
Rattlesnake master is common at Tucker Prairie, the last sizeable remnant of the Grand Prairie that used to cover a large portion of northern Missouri.

The decision not to impose constraints on what each Prairie Fork planting needs to look like gives MDC considerable freedom in terms of evaluating success.  That freedom led to some great discussions about what success should/could look like.  There were three tour stops where the topic came up in some form, and each is worth discussing.

1. The first discussion occurred early in the tour when we were looking at a soybean field that was going to be converted to prairie vegetation within the next few years.  Around the edge of the field were “waste areas” of tall fescue with infestations of sericea lespedeza, autumn olive, and other invasive plants and trees.  Because of the trees and topography, it wasn’t feasible to put those areas into cultivation, which is the technique MDC (and most of us) would prefer as a way to create a clean seed bed prior to planting prairie.  The group starting talking about other ways those areas might be prepared for planting, until Bill Kleiman (with The Nature Conservancy’s Nachusa Grasslands in Illinois) abruptly shifted the discussion.

Bill made the excellent point that those difficult areas wouldn’t necessarily have to be converted to a diverse prairie planting, and that attempting to do so might prove to be overwhelmingly time consuming or simply impossible.  The seedbank of invasives in those areas is probably heavy enough that even multiple years of cultivation might still result in long-term fights with invasive plants emerging from that seedbank long after prairie vegetation was planted.  Instead, Bill suggested, why not implement an annual program of broadcast herbicide spraying in those waste areas – with the simple goal of maintaining them as a low diversity, grass-dominated, plant communities that won’t threaten nearby diverse plantings?  In other words, rather than trying to make those areas perfect, just make them harmless.  Down the road, when everything else is restored, MDC can always come back and spend energy trying to convert them to something diverse.  In the meantime, they can save a lot of time and energy by avoiding a (likely fruitless) battle to convert a very weedy area into a pretty prairie.  It was certainly an interesting proposal.

Rosinweed (Silphium integrifolium) was just beginning to bloom during the GRN workshop.
Rosinweed (Silphium integrifolium) was just beginning to bloom during the GRN workshop.

2. The next site we visited had been planted to prairie vegetation several years earlier, but had a chronic infestation of sericea lespedeza.  While MDC staff was controlling the lespedeza through spot spraying, there was enough lespedeza (and enough spraying) that the area’s plant diversity had become fairly limited and dominated by a few grass and wildflower species.  Chris Newbold, who had been in charge of the restoration work at the time the site was seeded, said that if he had to do it all again, he would have left the area in cultivation a few more years to get better control of the lespdeza population prior to planting.  The more pressing question now, though, was how to deal with the site going forward.  Options included starting over by returning it to cultivation, trying to overseed the area to establish better plant diversity, or just leaving it alone.  An additional proposal was to overseed with plant species that are resistant to a selective herbicide that controls lespedeza, allowing the site to be broadcast sprayed without eliminating all plant diversity.  I don’t think the question was resolved through our discussion, but we built upon our earlier conversation by posing the question, “Does every part of a restoration project have to be ‘perfect’ in order for the project to be successful?”

This portion of Prairie Fork Conservation Area was seeded with a high diversity mixture but has lost plant diversity , at least in part because of years of herbicide spraying for sericea lespedeza.  The lespedeza is spot sprayed, but is abundant enough that herbicide impacts are evident on the plant community.
This portion of Prairie Fork Conservation Area was seeded with a high diversity mixture but has lost plant diversity , at least in part because of years of herbicide spraying for sericea lespedeza. The lespedeza is spot sprayed, but is abundant enough that herbicide impacts are evident on the plant community.  Mike Arduser, of MDC, pointed out that the site looks really nice from a bee habitat standpoint, bolstering the idea that although it had lost some of its plant diversity, it was still an important contributor to the landscape around it.

I appreciated the discussion because it forced me to reflect upon our Platte River Prairies, and areas that I wish looked better than they did.  In both my prairies and at Prairie Fork, it’s really the big picture that’s important.  Within the mosaic of natural communities that make up any sizeable prairie, it’s probably ok to have areas of low diversity vegetation.  At least at the scale of Prairie Fork, it’s really the mosaic that’s important, and variation in plant species composition between individual portions of the landscape is not only acceptable, but preferable.  Coming to terms with the idea that it’s ok to have portions of our prairies/properties that are less diverse than we think they could be is an important part of being a successful land manager.  The alternative probably entails driving ourselves to exhaustion!


3. The last site we looked at was a 2004 prairie planting that was very diverse and full of big showy wildflowers.  From an aesthetic standpoint, the planting was a big beautiful success.  I asked the MDC staff how they might judge the success of such a planting according to their objectives.  Clearly, one part of the answer is that a showy prairie is useful in terms of getting people to appreciate prairies – so that fits well into education/outreach objectives.  However, Jeff Demand, the current site manager, had another interesting perspective.  Jeff said that he appreciated the planting because it required very little maintenance.  There were no real invasive species issues to deal with, and nothing else about it that screamed out for attention.  The planting was clearly of value to wildlife, pollinators, and other prairie species, but it was particularly nice to have an area that just needed some period burning or similar management.  Especially when budgets and staffing are tight (and when are they NOT?) a site that is attractive and low maintenance can seem like heaven.

This 1994 seeding at Prairie Fork is an aesthetically-pleasing site.  Most people would be very happy to have this kind of establishment success from a prairie planting.
This 2004 seeding at Prairie Fork is an aesthetically-pleasing site. Most people would be very happy to have this kind of establishment success from a prairie planting.  However, aesthetics is not always the best measure of success.

There are no right or wrong answers when it comes to objectives.  Every site has its own, and they almost always change over time.  The important thing is to know what the objectives are for a particular site, and to be measuring whether or not you’re moving in the right direction.  It’s always nice to hear about other people’s objectives and measures, because it makes us re-examine our own.

I tend to worry more than I should about portions of our site that aren’t as “nice” as I think they should be.  The field trip discussion was a great reminder to sto obsessing about small areas and keep the big picture in mind.  It’s important to deal with areas that might negatively influence the surrounding landscape (e.g., by providing a foothold for invasive species that can spread into nearby areas).  Otherwise, however, variation between portions of a prairie or prairie landscape just adds to the diversity – and resilience – of the ecosystem.  I think that’s a good thing.

I guess I just have to be reminded of that now and then.

Dealing With a Pervasive Invasive – Kentucky Bluegrass in Prairies

Many of the prairies we manage have pretty degraded plant communities, characterized by low plant diversity and dominance by a few grass species – including the invasive Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis).  Our primary objective for these prairies is to increase plant diversity, which, in turn, bolsters ecological resilience and improves habitat quality for a wide range of prairie species.  Because bluegrass is so pervasive in our prairies, we’ve had to modify our objectives and strategies from those we use to address most other invasive species.

Kentucky bluegrass can stifle plant diversity by crowding out other plants. In many prairies degraded by years of overgrazing and/or broadcast herbicide use, bluegrass is now the dominant plant species and few other plants can compete with it.

When attacking invasive plant species, a common strategy is to contain, and (hopefully) shrink, patches of invasive plants in order to protect plant diversity in non-invaded areas.  In the case of Kentucky bluegrass, however, we have to take a different approach because the species already spans the entire prairie.  Kentucky bluegrass acts like a thick blanket of interwoven stems, roots, and rhizomes – smothering most other plant species beneath it.  Because our goal is to increase plant diversity, we want to make that blanket thin and porous enough that a wide variety of other plant species can grow up through it.   

An illustration of a floristically diverse prairie (left) with several large patches of an invasive plant.  When dealing with many invasive species, we can focus on reducing the size of infestations in order to restore a more diverse plant community.


Kentucky bluegrass acts as a thick blanket that smothers most other plant species.  In a case like this, we need to manage the prairie in a way that increases the mesh size of that blanket and allows a more diverse plant community to poke through.

Our primary strategy for suppressing Kentucky bluegrass is the periodic application of prescribed fire and grazing.  We can weaken bluegrass by burning prairies when bluegrass is just starting to flower and/or by grazing prairies harder in the spring than in the summer.  We mix those treatments with rest periods within a patch-burn grazing regime.  The result has been a steady increase in plant diversity in most of our degraded prairies.

If we were fighting a different invasive species, we might expect that if plant diversity was increasing, the amount of territory occupied by the invasive species would be decreasing.  With Kentucky bluegrass, however, our bluegrass blanket is getting thinner, but still covers the whole prairie – something that shows up clearly in data I’ve been collecting over the last decade.  Through the use of nested sampling plots of 1m2, 1/10m2, and 1/100m2, I’ve been tracking plant diversity and floristic quality through time, along with changes in the frequency of various plant species (the percentage of plots in which they occur).  Over the last 8-10 years, as plant diversity within 1m2 plots has increased, the frequency of Kentucky bluegrass has stayed about the same.   Even at smaller plot sizes, which are more sensitive to changes in the frequency of very abundant species, bluegrass is still in nearly every plot.

We also have a number of restored (reconstructed) prairies in and around our remnant prairies.  Within restored prairies, plant diversity is in pretty good shape, but Kentucky bluegrass is rapidly invading.  In one particular prairie, Kentucky bluegrass is now in almost 90% of 1m2 plots and more than 50% of 1/100m2 plots.  That sounds bad, but as bluegrass becomes more abundant, plant diversity – and the frequency of other prairie plant species – is actually holding steady.  There are a few small areas in which bluegrass appears to be forming near monocultures, but for the most part, it looks like bluegrass is just filling in around the other plants instead of actually displacing them.  My guess is that some soil conditions provide such ideal growing conditions for bluegrass, it’s going to be king of those areas no matter what we do.  Elsewhere, however, I think our management is preventing it from becoming dominant.

Here’s the take home lesson for me:  When trying to manage for plant diversity in the face of a pervasive species such as Kentucky bluegrass, it’s more important to track plant diversity than to worry about how much territory bluegrass occupies. 

Just consider the data from our prairies… if I concentrated only on how much Kentucky bluegrass is in our prairies, it would look like we’re failing miserably in our management attempts.  We’ve got just as much bluegrass as we ever did in our degraded remnant (unplowed) prairies, and we’re quickly losing ground in some of our restored prairies.  However, my data also shows that plant diversity is increasing in remnant prairies and holding steady in restored prairies.  Since the ultimate goal is to have a diverse plant community, that’s success! 

Click here to see a PDF showing some of the data I mentioned in this post.

The Right Metaphor for Prairie Restoration

Prairie restoration can be a powerful tool for grassland conservation, but we’re not taking advantage of its full potential.  Too often, we think and talk about prairie restoration (aka prairie reconstruction) in the wrong way.  Instead of trying to restore an ecosystem, we try to reproduce history.

Nelson Winkel, land manager for The Nature Conservancy’s Platte River Prairies, harvests grass seed using a pull-behind seed stripper.

I was in Washington D.C. a couple weeks ago and visited Ford’s theater, where President Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.  After the death of the president, the building went through drastic changes, including being completely gutted after a partial collapse of the interior.  By the time the decision was made to restore the building for use as a historic site, the National Park Service basically had to start from scratch.  Regardless, through painstaking research and a lot of hard work, the theater was rebuilt to closely resemble Ford’s theater of 1865.

The rebuilding of Ford’s theater is a decent metaphor for much of the early prairie restoration (or reconstruction) work dating back to the 1930’s in North America – as well for some of the restoration work that continues today.   In the case of prairie restoration, someone identifies a tract of land that used to be prairie but has been converted into something completely different (usually cropland), and tries their best to restore what was there before it was converted.  Just as in the restoration of Ford’s theater, the prairie restoration process requires lot of research and hard work to identify, find, and reassemble what had been there before.

Unfortunately, the Ford’s theater approach has turned out to be a poor fit for prairie restoration.  Prairies aren’t buildings that have specific architectural plans and well-defined pieces that can be collected and assembled to create a pre-defined end product.  Prairies are dynamic ecosystems that are constantly changing and evolving, and their components include organisms that interact with each other in complex ways.  Trying to recreate a prairie that looks and functions just as it used to – especially on a small isolated tract of land – is nearly impossible.

Reseeded prairie at The Nature Conservancy’s Kankakee Sands Restoration Project in Indiana. If the plant community today looks different than it did before it was farmed, is that really a failure of the restoration project?

That doesn’t mean small scale prairie restoration is a bad idea.  I think reestablishing vegetation that is similar to what was at a site many years ago can have tremendous historic and educational value, and can also provide important habitat for many grassland species.  Where this kind of prairie restoration falls flat is when we expect too much from it.  It’s really easy to find glaring differences between the restored prairie and what we know or think used to be there – soil characteristics are different, insect and wildlife species are missing, plant species are too common or too rare, etc.  These “failures” have led some people in conservation and academia to become disillusioned with the whole concept of prairie restoration.

In reality, prairie restoration has proven to be very successful, and is a tremendous tool for grassland conservation.  We just need to find and apply a better metaphor.

A Better Metaphor for Ecological Restoration

Unlike efforts to restore old buildings, prairie restoration projects should not be aimed at recreating something exactly as it existed long ago.  Instead, effective prairie restoration should be like rebuilding a city after large portions of it are destroyed in a major disaster.  When reconstructing a metropolitan area, replicating individual structures is much less important than restoring the processes the inhabitants of the city rely on.  The people living and working in a city depend upon the restoration of power, transportation, communication, and other similar functions.  Those people don’t care whether roads, power lines, or communication towers are put back exactly as they were before – they just want to be able to get the supplies and information they need, and to travel around so they can to do their jobs and survive.  Restoration success is not measured by how much the rebuilt areas resemble the preexisting areas, but by whether or not the city and its citizens can survive and thrive again.

Similarly, restoration of fragmented prairie landscapes should not be an attempt to recreate history.  It should be an attempt to rebuild the viability of the species – and, more importantly, the processes – that make the prairie ecosystem function and thrive.  Success shouldn’t be measured at the scale of individual restoration projects, but at the scale of the resultant complex of remnant and restored prairies.  Are habitat patches sufficiently large that area-sensitive birds can nest successfully?  Are insects and animals able to travel through that prairie complex to forage, mate, and disperse?  Are ecological processes like seed dispersal and pollination occurring between the various patches of habitat?  When a species’ population is wiped out in one part of the prairie because of a fire, disease, or other factor, is it able to recolonize from nearby areas?

Pollination is an example of an important process that drives prairie function. Increasing the size and/or connectivity of prairies by restoring areas around and between prairie fragments can enhance the viability of pollination and other processes.

At first glance, choosing the appropriate metaphor for prairie restoration may seem insignificant compared to other challenges we face in grassland conservation.  However, if we’re going to successfully restore the viability of fragmented prairies, we can’t afford to waste time and effort worrying about whether or not we’ve matched pre-European settlement condition, or any other historical benchmark.  Instead, we need to focus on patching the essential systems back together.

After all, we’re not building for the past, we’re building for the future.


Read more on this subject…

– An earlier blog post about using prairie restoration as a landscape scale conservation tool.

– A prairie restoration project case study, with ideas about how to measure its success.

– Some recent early attempts we’ve made to measure restoration success by looking at the responses of bees and ants.

– A post about the importance and definition of ecological resilience in prairies.

Ants in Restored Prairie – Part 2 of our 2012 Insect Week Results

As promised, here is the second half of the results from our insect week back in July.  Back in September, I reported that it appears bees are using our restored prairies much as they do our remnant prairies.  That’s particularly important because our prairie restoration objective is to functionally enlarge and reconnect our remnant prairies by restoring the cropland around and between them.  That objective can only be reached if insects and other creatures in our remnant prairies are using restored areas as habitat.

Besides bees, the other group we focused on during our insect week was ants.  James Trager (biologist and naturalist at the Shaw Nature Reserve in Missouri) and Laura Winkler (a graduate student at South Dakota State University) were here to help us start an inventory of the ants in our prairies and – more importantly – to begin evaluating our restored prairies as ant habitat.  As with the bees, there’s still much to learn, but the news so far is good.

Mound building ants (Formica montana) tending aphids on bull thistle. Platte River Prairies, Nebraska.

Continue reading

Save The Date! July 13, 2012

It’s going to be a big day.  I’m not sure what to call it yet, but it’ll be big.  Mark July 13 on your calendar, and make plans to travel to the Platte River Prairies in Nebraska!

Prairie Ecologist readers may remember previous posts about how to measure success in prairie restoration (reconstruction) and some early attempts to evaluate how insects are reacting to our prairie restorations.  Next July, I’m taking the next big step, and you’re invited to join in the fun.

With the help of entomologists James Trager (Shaw Nature Reserve, Missouri) and Mike Arduser (Missouri Department of Conservation) – and hopefully some others – I’m going to try to do three things.

1) Ramp up efforts to establish an inventory of the insect and animal species in our prairies – including both our remnant prairies and those we restored from cropland.  I have a pretty good handle on the plant communities, but we’ve just scratched the surface on the insect and animal communities.

2) Build a list of species that can help indicate whether or not our restored prairies are functioning correctly (e.g. expanding and re-connecting our fragmented prairies).   That list will include habitat specialists with specific needs our restored prairies will have to meet if we are to be successful.

3) Establish sampling protocols that we can follow, using staff and volunteers, to track those species over time to see if they are moving into and through our restored prairies.

Do you know what kind of ant this is? Me neither!! That's why I'm excited to have James Trager - who DOES know - coming to our prairies to help me figure out what we've got, and why.

James and Mike have already committed to come to the Platte and help me do some initial sampling and think about how to set all of this up for the future.  We’ll spend a good part of the week of July 9th collecting critters, analyzing what we find, and thinking about what makes the most sense for future evaluation work.

Then, the big day is Friday (yes, Friday the 13th) and you’re all invited to join in the conversation.  The agenda is still under development, but at this point, the plan is to have a public field day/open house revolving around prairie ecology, management, and restoration – with a particular emphasis on insects and other prairie animals.  We’ll have tours and demonstrations of prairie management and restoration work and research projects, displays of plant and animal species from our sites, and presentations by various prairie ecologists.  Besides James and Mike, I hope to have several other experts on insects and other prairie animals on hand to talk about those species and their ecology, and hopefully give you a close-up look at them (the animals, not the experts).  It should a great time of year to see wildflowers, birds, and lots of insects – including regal fritillaries, which should be near their peak abundance at that time of year.

Overall, the day should be a great opportunity to learn more about the natural history and identification of prairie species, trade ideas about prairie management, restoration and research, and network with other people who are just as interested in prairies as you are.  In addition, it will allow us to build upon some of the conversations we’ve had through this blog – but to do it in person.  We can walk through the same prairies, look at the same fire, grazing, and seeding results, and compare observations.  I hope that a number of the regular readers of this blog will be able to come – especially those of you from outside Nebraska – because I think it can only increase the value of our future blog conversations to have you see our prairies in person.

We work hard to maximize native plant diversity in our prairie restoration work, then use fire and grazing to maintain that diversity - and hopefully also ecological resilience. Does it work? Come judge for yourself. Most importantly, we need to know how insects and other animals are responding, and I hope to learn more about that.

So – if you’re interested, please put the day on your calendar, start thinking about your travel plans, and we’ll hope to see you next July!

(Stay tuned for more details)

Trying to Figure Out What We Did Right

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 Dahms 2000 prairie restoration has turned into one of the most aesthetically pleasing prairies we manage along the Platte. It has tremendous diversity and abundance of wildflowers. Most importantly, its plant diversity is still increasing fairly rapidly after twelve field seasons.

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.

Flower species such as black-eyed Susan (foreground) and bee balm (pink flowers in the background) are still dominating the plant community in this photo from 2009 (the 10th growing season of this seeding). The lasting abundance of those species is, I think, tied to the lack of dominance by major grass species.

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.

The prairie has been managed with some periodic fire and grazing, which should be helping to suppress dominant grasses. However, this site has gotten much less of that kind of management than nearby restored prairies, and those other prairies have stronger populations of major grasses, so management can't explain the whole phenomenon. In this photo, cattle are grazing in the burned portion of this site - within a patch-burn grazing system. The grasses are primarily grazed short, helping to showcase the abundance of the forbs.

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.

Besides its aesthetic appeal, the prairie is also a great seed harvest site because of its wildflower abundance. Nanette Whitten (left) and Mardell Jasnowski (right) are harvesting seeds in this photo.

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.

An Early Attempt to Evaluate Prairie Restoration Success by Looking at Insect Use.

Back in February, I wrote a post that laid out some ideas about how to measure success when using prairie restoration (reconstruction) to stitch fragmented remnant prairies back together.  One of the main needs is to see whether species from the remnant are also using the restored prairie.  If I’m trying to make a small remnant prairie function as a larger prairie by adding restored prairie around it, the species in the remnant must be able to expand into and travel through the restored habitat.

I just got some data from a couple of volunteer amateur entomologists that apply to that kind of evaluation, so I thought I’d share what they found.  First, let me be clear that these are amateurs (“enthusiasts” may be a better term than “entomologists” – though they are much better at insect identification than I am!) and that these are not research data.  However, what they found was very interesting, and will make a good launching point for future work.

Four species of tiger beetles were among the insects found during the 2009 inventory work.


In early 2009, I was approached by Chris Aubushon and Connie McCartney, who live in Grand Island, Nebraska – near our Platte River prairies.  Chris and Connie were initially just looking for new sites to hunt for insects, but as we talked, we developed a bigger idea.  They volunteered to come out once a month for during the 2009 growing season and collect as many insects as they could from 6 sites and to identify what they could.  The six sites were really three sites where I had a restored prairie next to a remnant prairie, and they collected insects from both the remnant and restored portions of those sites.

Chris Aubushon (left) and Connie McCartney (right) setting up plots for their insect inventory project in early spring 2009.

Again, this was not a research project, but Chris and Connie – and some helpers – did come out once a month for 5 months and collect a lot of insects.   They restricted their sampling to one 100 foot by 100 foot plot at each of the 6 sites, and used a combination of sweep netting and pitfall traps to catch the insects.


Chris and Connie were able to identify 136 species from those five months of collecting.  They also found (but didn’t identify to species) approximately 33 species of spiders.  When I got the list of species from Chris, I sent it to several friends of mine who are knowledgeable about insects to get their impressions.  The consensus among those entomologists was that the insects on the list were almost exclusively common species that are habitat generalists.  In other words, the list doesn’t include many rare species, or species tied to particularly “good” quality prairies.  Instead, Chris and Connie mostly caught insect species that can be found just about anywhere.   That doesn’t diminish their efforts, but it’s important to remember as you interpret the breakdown of results.

Of the 136 species caught, 28 were seen at only one site.  Interestingly, 8 of those 28 species were found only in remnant prairie, while 20 were found only in restored prairie.  (I don’t think it is necessarily important, but of the 20 species found only in restored habitat, half were beetles.)  Two species – a firefly and a burying beetle were found at two different sites that were not adjacent to each other.  In each case, they were found in one restored prairie plot and one remnant prairie plot.

The reference insect collection from Chris and Connie's work in 2009.

All of the remaining species (106 of them) were found in both halves of at least one remnant/restored prairie pair.  In other words, except for the two species mentioned above, every other species of insect found in more than one place was seen in both the restored and remnant portion of at least one prairie.  Remembering that these are all generalist species, I’m still surprised – and encouraged – by those results.  I had expected to see at least a few insect speces that were found in remnant prairies but that weren’t yet making the jump into the adjacent restored prairies.  In fact, I was kind of counting on seeing that so that I could design some follow-up data collection to figure out what the obstacles might be that were preventing them from using restored prairie.


So what have I learned?  First, the prairie restoration work we’ve been doing appears to provide adequate habitat for the most common and widespread insect species in our remnant prairies.  At least for those species, the restoration work we’re doing is successfully increasing the size and connectivity of fragmented remnant prairies.

Second, I’ve learned that I need to recruit a lot more entomologists to come collect insects from our prairies because every time I do, I learn something.  A little more than a decade ago, I worked with Kristine Nemec on her graduate school project to compare insects between remnant and restored prairies along the Platte River in Nebraska.  For her project, she inventoried insects in 3 restored and 3 remnant (degraded) prairies, but the restorations and remnants weren’t adjacent to each other.  Nevertheless, among grasshoppers, katydids, leafhoppers, planthoppers, and treehoppers, she found very few species that were found in remnant prairies but not restored prairies.  She also found very similar numbers of species between remnant and restored prairie for each of the insect groups she looked at.  You can see a brief summary of some of her thesis findings here. Nemec Results

Third, I’ve learned that the next steps in our efforts to evaluate insect use of our restored prairies will be harder.  We probably need to start by identifying species of insects in our remnant prairies that may not utilize nearby restored prairie – based on what we (meaning people besides me) know about their life history.  Then we need to do some targeted sampling to see whether they are or are not using those restored prairies.  It’d be even better if we could actually track individual insect movement to see if they cross the boundary between remnant and restored prairie.   (That should be easy, right?)  Broad sampling like we’ve done so far is useful, and a good first step, but now we need to hone in on a few target species and see what we can learn about them.  Species that rely on a particular plant species or that are tied to soil organic matter levels may be examples of those we need to study.

To sum up, there’s plenty of work to do.  To this point, we haven’t found any glaring problems with our restored prairies that are so severe that common insect species are restricted from using them.  That’s pretty nice to know, but it’s just the tip of the research iceberg.  Now we need to dive in and start working on the rest.

I’m extremely grateful to Chris Aubushon and Connie McCartney for all of their hard work collecting, sorting, and identifying insects for this project.  It was an amazing effort – and done for the simple love of exploration of the natural world.  Thank you.

I’m also grateful to James Trager, M.J. Hatfield, and Ted MacRae for helping me to interpret the results of the project.  Their comments and insight helped me tremendously as I worked to understand what conclusions I could and couldn’t pull from these data.