Dating Sites for Prairies?

One of the biggest, but rarely talked about threats to prairie conservation comes during transitions of land ownership. I’m frequently approached by people who have poured their heart and soul into restoring and/or managing a nice parcel of land and are wrestling with how to make sure their investment isn’t squandered after they’re gone. I think about the same issue with my own family prairie, though I hope I have many decades before the issue becomes urgent.

Our family prairie stayed in the family after my grandparents died because their kids (my dad and his sisters) made it a priority and I was willing and able to take it over its stewardship. I don’t know if any of my kids or their kids will be interested or able to take it when it’s time. That’s definitely a big worry of mine, and many other landowners have similar worries.

Conservation easements are a tool that can provide some help, and they are absolutely valuable in landscapes where prairies are rapidly being turned into crop land. However, easements don’t address all threats and come with a number of complications and disadvantages. If you’re not familiar with conservation easements, they are essentially a legal agreement made between a landowner and a land trust organization in which the landowner gives or sells certain land rights to the land trust. A landowner might agree, for example, not to ever construct a building on the site, till the land for crops, or do other things that would destroy the prairie or threaten the conservation value of the property. That agreement becomes legally binding and is attached to the deed so that all future landowners have to abide by the same restrictions (for the length of the easement, which is often perpetual). Typically, those restrictions are difficult, if not impossible, to alter once everything has been signed.

Easements can help eliminate some clear threats to prairies such as housing development or tillage, but easements are not well-designed to ensure that current or future landowners control invasive plants or otherwise manage the site to benefit plant diversity or habitat quality. A prairie destroyed by chronic overgrazing or invasive trees is just as destroyed as it would be by conversion to a soybean field, but most easements can’t protect against those first two threats.

It’s very difficult to use any kind of legal contract to dictate how a prairie should be managed for the long-term. Challenges to prairies change over time, as do our best ideas about how to address them. Easements, however, are static and inflexible. We need a better option.

A conservation easement could prevent a house from being built on this prairie but can’t force a future landowner to suppress invasive plants or prevent them from managing in a way that damages its biodiversity.

The crux of this issue is that every landowner wants to know that the next landowner will do their best to take care of the property. Sometimes, that assurance comes because land is transferred to a family member who has already invested time, energy and passion into the property. Often, however, family members are uninterested or unable to own or manage the land, so the current owner has to look elsewhere.

What if there was a kind of online dating site for prairie owners and conservation-minded people looking to purchase a prairie? There are myriad ways this could be handled, but the basic idea is that someone looking for a successor could post information about their prairie and the kinds of work they’ve invested in it. Meanwhile, potential buyers could post a profile of themselves that outlines their interest and (potentially) expertise in prairie ownership and conservation. If two people see each other as potential partners, they could set up ways to further explore that relationship.

There are lots of ways to help this idea succeed, including training and certification programs for prospective buyers, educational and financial assistance for both current and future owners, and many others. Clearly, there are also many ways this model could fail, but if even if it only works in some cases, it seems a lot better than our current lack of options. If every passionate prairie owner passes their site on to another passionate prairie owner, it creates a self-perpetuating chain of land protection based on relationships and trust. The model could work equally well for both tiny prairies in the eastern tallgrass prairie and large ranches in the west.

This piece of Sandhills prairie is owned by The Nature Conservancy, and that should keep it conserved. However, TNC and other conservation organizations can and should own a limited amount of land. Many private landowners do a terrific job of prairie conservation and just need help finding someone who will take on that mantle when they’re done.

Legally-binding land protection strategies are typically expensive and limited in scope and effectiveness. Conservation organizations can only buy and manage so many parcels of land, and too much conservation and/or government ownership creates significant social friction in some landscapes. Easements can protect against some threats, but not others, and placing long-term or permanent restrictions on land isn’t a desired solution for many landowners.

Simply helping landowners find appropriate successors for their land seems like a potentially valuable addition to the currently available options. Whether that comes in the form of an online dating-style website or something completely different, I love the idea of helping people find someone they can trust to carry on a conservation legacy. I don’t love it enough to set something up myself, because that kind of thing is not my strength. However, I’d sure be happy if someone else wanted to step up and do it! (Or let me know if something like this already exists – I can’t be the only one thinking along these lines.)

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.