Every Little Bit Helps

I’m getting excited about this upcoming field season.  For the first time in several years, we’re going to be attempting to harvest seed from as many prairie plant species as we can.  Between about 1997 and 2005, we spent much of each field season hand-picking seeds from a broad diversity of species – often ending up with over 200 species by the end of the season.  It was exciting and fulfilling, and we were often able to create up to a couple hundred acres of new prairie habitat each year.  Since that time, we’ve focused less on converting cropland to high-diversity prairie (we ran out of cropland!) and more on harvesting large amounts of fewer species to overseed degraded prairies.  I’m not sure we’ll be able to harvest as many as 200 species this summer – we’re pulled in many more directions now than we were in our “glory years” of seed harvesting – but making the attempt will be fun.

A clonal patch of bracted spiderwort (Tradescantia bracteata) in a 2002 prairie planting.

A clonal patch of bracted spiderwort (Tradescantia bracteata) in a 2002 prairie planting.  It isn’t hard to find these patches (when they’re blooming) despite the fact that we had only about 1 cup of seed spread over about 70 acres.

During those glory years, we worked hard to build the most diverse seed mixture possible.  We used to joke about how many seeds we had to get from a plant species before we could add it to that year’s harvest list.  It kind of felt like cheating when we’d only find a handful or two of seeds from a species but would add it to the list anyway.  However, we justified listing those species because of conversations with people who had much more experience than we did (especially Bill Whitney with Prairie Plains Resource Institute) who claimed that even a few seeds would usually be enough to establish a species in a new prairie.  Besides, we figured if the species was appropriate to the site, tiny populations would spread out over time.

Now that I’ve had up to 17 years to watch the establishment of plantings I personally harvested seed for, I can testify that Bill and others were right.  Sometimes, just a few seeds really are enough.  That knowledge is awfully good for morale when we’re on our hands and knees searching for violet or pale poppy mallow (Callirhoe alcoides) plants to harvest from.  Those are just two or many examples of plants that are short, have widely scattered populations in our prairies, and are difficult to find at seed harvest time because the surrounding vegetation has grown tall enough to obscure them from sight.   To make things worse, neither of those species produces many seeds per plant, so even when you find a plant, you might only get 20-50 seeds out of it.  Knowing that those 20-50 seeds are worth finding makes crawling on hands and knees seem much less tedious.  Ok, a LITTLE less tedious.

Violets are difficult to find after they are done blooming.  Even when you find them,  each plant produces few seeds (and you have to get them before the pods pop open and toss the seeds away...)

Violets are difficult to find after they are done blooming. Even when you find them, each plant produces few seeds (and you have to get them before the pods pop open and toss the seeds away…)

Last week, I finally found time to finish data entry from my 2014 plant community monitoring of some of our restored prairies.  Looking through the long-term data trends, it was gratifying to see hard evidence that small amounts of seed really do turn into robust plant populations.  Here are a few examples.  (Warning: this next portion of the post includes actual graphs of actual data.  If you are turned off by graphs or data, please skip to the last paragraph now.)

.

Data from a mesic restored prairie with sandy/loam soil and scattered sand ridges.

.

Data from an upland sandhills restored prairie.

In the above two graphs, similar trends can be seen for populations of stiff sunflower (Helianthus pauciflorus) and Missouri goldenrod (Solidago missouriensis).  These data were collected from approximately 100 1×1 m plots across each site, and the graphs show the % of plots within which each species was present.  The top site (mesic) was sampled annually and the bottom (sandhills) was sampled every other year.

It might look as if Missouri goldenrod is a rare plant in these prairies, but remember that in order to show up in more than a couple 1×1 m plots, it has to be fairly abundant.  Stiff sunflower, on the other hand really is ubiquitous.  Interestingly, only about 3 gallons of fluffy/stemmy Missouri goldenrod seed was in the mix for the  70 acre mesic site and 10 gallons for the 110 acre sandhill site.  About 5 gallons of sunflower seed (still in hulls, with some stems included) was planted in the sandhills and 3 gallons in the mesic site.  Both are fairly respectable amounts of seed given that they were hand harvested, but they were spread pretty thinly across 180 acres.

Slide3

Slide4

The second two graphs (above) show two perennial species, a grass named Scribner’s panicum (Panicum oligosanthes) and the short-beaked sedge (Carex brevior), as well as the annual grass six-weeks fescue (Vulpia octoflora).  The two perennials seem to be on a slow steady climb in abundance across both sites, which is excellent.  Meanwhile, the annual appears to be doing what annual plants should do, which is to flourish during periods when competition from surrounding plants is temporarily suppressed.  We had harvested very little seed for all three of these species that year, so it’s gratifying to see that they are becoming part of the established plant community.  Specifically, we had:

– only 7 cups (!) of seed for the short-beaked sedge across 180 acres (both sites combined).

– about 2 gallons of stemmy seed for Scribner’s panicum.

– 3 1/2 cups of six-weeks fescue (tiny seeds) for the sandhills and 1 cup for the mesic site.

I knew we hadn’t collected much seed for these species, but I was still surprised by how little we’d had when I went back to check the records.  There are many other examples I could share of species that established very nicely (and/or are increasing over time) despite small amounts of seed in the planting mixture.  Some of those species established fairly quickly, but most are slowly increasing in abundance, either through clonal (rhizomatous) growth or because each new generation of plants puts out more seed to spawn the next generation.

Fourpoint evening primrose (Oenothera rhombipetala) established well in the sandhills restoration despite only 2 cups of seed planted.  The biennial species is episodic in its abundance, but

Fourpoint evening primrose (Oenothera rhombipetala) established well in our sandhills restoration despite less than 2 cups of seed planted on 110 acres. The biennial species is episodic in its abundance – just as it should be.

The seed we harvest this coming season will be planted on about 50 acres – far fewer than the 150-200 acres we planted each year before we ran out of cropland to restore.  However, regardless of planting size, the major challenge is still to find and harvest seed from a diverse mixture of plant species.  We’ll be digging out our old lists of species, harvest times, and notes about where the best plant populations can be found.  Then we’ll strap buckets to our waists and start picking seeds.  It should be a fun year!

…and on those days when we’re laboriously searching for tiny plants hidden beneath tall grass, we’ll remember that with seed harvesting, every little bit helps!

Click here for more information on prairie restoration in Nebraska.

 

 

Hubbard Fellowship Blog – Plains Pocket Mouse

This post is written by Jasmine Cutter, one of our Hubbard Fellows.  She has been studying the way small mammals use our restored and remnant prairies.

Remember when I said I was going to highlight some more of our small mammal species? Well, at long last, here’s the second installment!

The plains pocket mouse.

The plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens).  So Cute!  Notice the small eyes, small ears, and white dot under the ear.  Top tends to be brown/buff-colored, with a yellowish line along its side and a white underbelly.  Photo by Chris Helzer

Arguably the sleekest and most adorable of the critters I caught, the most distinguishing feature of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) is its fur-lined cheek pouches. Fur-lined cheek pouches!!! Imagine if, when you opened your mouth, on each side there was a little fur-lined pouch that ran all the way back to almost your shoulders! Gives me the heebie jeebies to think about, but pretty awesome if you’re a pocket mouse. The diet of the plains pocket mice is almost entirely grass and weed seeds, and the pouches allow them to carry seeds back to their burrows and cache them.

Based on what I read, it’s thought that the purpose of these pouches being fur-lined is to conserve spit. Pocket mice and their relatives (other pocket mice, kangaroo rats, kangaroo mice) are often associated with arid environments and these critters are all extremely water efficient. The thought is that if pocket mice had a hamster-like pouch, then every time they spit out the seeds they were carrying they’d be wasting precious moisture. If the pouches are fur-lined, then no spit wasted!

fur-lined pockets

Look at those cheek pouches!  Remember, I was only holding this critter for a few seconds before I released it.  only a temporary undignified moment, and then back to the sandhills!

These adaptations help the plains pocket mice go for six weeks without water! Most of the moisture they need is obtained from seeds and their kidneys are extremely efficient. Furthermore, their habits also lend to water conservation; pocket mice spend most of the day underground in burrows where it’s cooler and more humid, they plug their entrance holes to keep in moisture (and keep out predators), and they can change slow their metabolism (enter torpor) when it’s too hot or too cold.

The other crazy thing about the plains pocket mouse is that it is not closely related to any of the other rodents* that I caught. Those other rodents  — northern grasshopper mouse, deer mouse, harvest mouse, voles — all belong to one taxonomic family Cricetidae (which includes true hamsters, voles, lemmings and New World rats and mice), whereas the plains pocket mouse is from the family Heteromyidae. Heteromyidae includes kangaroo rats, kangaroo mice, and pocket mice, though none are technically rats or mice. In fact, the plains pocket mouse is more closely related to pocket gophers than to any other rodent I caught!

This is a very simplified phylogenetic tree of the Order Rodentia. Phylogenetic trees show the inferred evolutionary relationships among species based on similarities/differences in physical and/or genetic characteristics. So whenever two branches come together, it's understood that the join represents the most recent common ancestor. FYI, there are a lot of other critters in the Order Rodentia that are not shown; there are 5 suborders I'm not showing and many branches that diverge from those suborders. Also length of lines is for convenience and doesn't represent any timescale.

This is a very simplified phylogenetic tree of the Order Rodentia. Phylogenetic trees show the inferred evolutionary relationships among species based on similarities/differences in physical and/or genetic characteristics. So whenever two branches come together, it’s understood that the join represents the most recent common ancestor. FYI, there are a lot of other critters in the Order Rodentia that are not shown; there are 5 suborders I’m not showing and many branches that diverge from those suborders. Also length of lines is for convenience and doesn’t represent any timescale.

All this is very interesting, but doesn’t help you identify a plains pocket mouse if you saw it in the field… In my mind, its key identifying features include its small size (usually 7-15 grams, 99-150mm nose to tail tip), small ears usually with a white dot below them, grooved upper incisors (if you hold them by their scruff, you’ll see a line down each upper incisor), and of course, their cheek pouches! They tend to be dark on their back, with a yellowish (“buff-colored”) line on their sides and white/pale underneath.

They are most frequently found in (usually sandy) areas with friable soil. Sandhills are a good bet, as are other fields that have open sandy patches, especially ones that are grazed so they’re more open. In general, plains pocket mice seem to prefer sparsely vegetated areas (hopefully my data will test whether that holds up on our properties).

The author collecting vegetation data for her small mammal research project.

The author collecting vegetation data for her small mammal research project.  Photo by Chris Helzer

In terms of why we care about them, well, they have awesome cheek pouches and barely need any water!!! What else do you want?? Just kidding, there are many more reasons why it’s worth paying attention to them. Most importantly, we still don’t know that much about them. Not a lot is known about their mating or winter habits, and until recently there were sizable gaps in our understanding of their distribution in Nebraska (see Geluso and Wright 2012).

The plains pocket mouse can be found throughout the Great Plains – from Northern Mexico to Minnesota and the Dakotas; yet, it’s local distributions are less well understood. There also seem to be noticeable differences between critters on the western end of their range and the eastern end. So much so, that there are two recognized subspecies of the plains pocket mouse. There is a western subspecies, P. f. flavescens and an eastern subspecies, P. f. perniger.** The eastern subspecies is considered rarer and has been deemed a Tier 1 At-Risk species by the Nebraska Game and Parks Natural Legacy Program.

Look!  A photo of me taking a photo of a pocket mouse!

A photo of me taking a photo of a pocket mouse!

Our Platte River Prairies are right at the edge of the alleged dividing line between the range of the western subspecies and the range of the eastern subspecies, which makes it an especially interesting place to study them. Are we seeing the eastern subspecies, or the western? At this point, the answer seems to be “yes!” Hopefully our population(s) will help the experts to parse the differences between the two subspecies and their range. Trying to define ranges is always tricky, especially because sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a species is actually not in a place, or if people just haven’t looked for it there.

All of this is to say that there’s a lot more work to do! It’s exciting to study a critter that is still fairly enigmatic, and I’m excited to see what future studies discover both in terms of life history knowledge and range/subspecies questions!

* Rodents are from the Order Rodentia, i.e., all the critters I caught except the shrews, the weasel, and the frog.

** The differences between the subspecies are very nuanced and my previous description (and pictures!) should still allow you to identify them as a plains pocket mouse.