Nachusa Grasslands Prescribed Fire Summary Report April 2026

Posted on April 30, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Bill Kleiman

April 9 IL DNR Franklin Creek Natural Area, 21-acres. These very modest flames do some good if they can just keep going.

March 27: Yellow House Prairie burn 140– acres

The bottom line:

  • Number of burn days was 20, which is a limiting factor.
  • We burned 2,370-acres of Nachusa on 23 burn units
  • We assisted at 6 units for 278-acres.
  • Average size of a burn unit was 103-acres with a unit as small as 15-acres and big as 333.
  • Average crew size was 10.
  • These values are typical for us.

March 30: Kaleb Baker of INPC leads the fire safety briefing for a DNR fire at Franklin Creek State Natural Area.  At the briefing each crew receives a map and a crew roster which tells them which team they will be on & what equipment they will have.  The map and roster are printed and on the radio table when crew arrive, and they enjoy pondering the information gleamed from it.  The briefing lasts about 20 minutes.  Then each team gets together and figures out some last minute logistics, tests their equipment, then they leave to go inspect their fire line that they will control for the day.

What is better than one water tender?  Two tenders!  We find this extra army surplus water buffalo is nice to have when the burn unit is big.  Each team can have their own water tender in a place where it helps them refill an empty tank and return to the line quickly.  It also gives this new EV Ford truck which we don’t want scratched yet something to do.

April 7: East part of Main Unit.  Our fire scout in red, Joe Richardson, watches in the corner where we started ignitions.  The clockwise team is to the right, and the counterclockwise is off camera on left.

We like UTVs for their mobility.   I don’t like that a two stroke gasoline fuel can is there, especially behind the pump motor exhaust.  I removed it. You can find a GRN blog post I wrote about fire equipment here:  Rx fire pumper units and tenders | grassland restoration network

On the open prairie the pickup truck pumper is nice as it holds nearly 3 times the water the UTV carries.  Mark Herman was driver with Steve Lardner on the hose. 

Lessons learned:

  • Communicate.  Tell the chain of command what the issue is. If the radios are full of static, try that cell phone.  Line bosses need to communicate across to each other and up to the burn boss, without being chatty, vague, or cautious. 
  • Redundancy: We had a fire where a UTV went down with a flat tire. Hence we need enough boots and tires on the ground to fill in such gaps.

March 9: Hook Larson Unit, 114-acres.  Bison are typically very calm when we burn.  This bunch was in the burn unit.  We slowly moved them out of the unit and kept burning.  Bison seem to hover in grazed lawns where the fires hardly burn, and they will hang out in fresh black.   

March 25: Main Unit burn, 333-acres. A long line of smokey back burn.  If the backfire is burning don’t add to it by igniting a line further in, as this puts a bolus of smoke on the crew trying to observe the line and the extra ignition is more likely to send a spot fire.  Be patient and keep extending the ignition line.

March 23: Juanita’s burn unit. Ali Fakhari of the Friends of Illinois Nature Preserves joined us for a day.  When we burn with other crews everybody gains insights. 

March 28, Stone Barn Savanna burn, 300-acres.  Crew is gathered for the After Action Review to discuss lessons learned.  The UTV there is our fire scout vehicle, which carries snacks, drinking water, and torch fuel.  Four of these crew are staff, the rest are ‘civilians’.  Go team!

October 21: Big Jump West fire break preparation. The skid loader just mowed the fire break.  All that vegetation is now mulched.  Typically, we hay rake and then use a leaf blower powered by our tractor to move that mulch off the fire break.

November 11: Preparing fire breaks.  The tender truck towed the tractor to this unit and then that red leaf blower cleared about two miles of leaves and mowed vegetation from the fire break.

November 16, DNR fire at Mineral Marsh, 160-acres.  Russ Blogg was Burn Boss. About half of this crew are citizen volunteers who made this big burn possible.  Nachusa supports natural areas management in the region.  We care for our preserve, but we also turn outwards and support other preserves as they are important too.  Photo: R Blogg

April 14, FCNA: Spring green-up came early and this was our last fire.  The opening photo in this report is from this unit where oak litter burned slowly helping thin the brush.

December 19: Brush mowing opens brush filled habitats that the fires can then keep sunny.  Katie Jo Jackson was a regular operator of our brush mower.

January 23: Before brush mowing by Kaleb Baker at FCNA.

January 23: After brush mowing

November 6: Visitor Center Prairie burn, 31-acres.  Smoke blowing out of the east sending smoke away from the road.

Ecologists Tyler Pellegrini and Leah Kleiman

February 16: Big Jump East, 180-acres. The climate is such now-a-days, that in the last several years we can burn in February.   Paul Say is a food engineer by day and volunteer steward by weekend.   

Nachusa celebrated publishing 100 peer reviewed scientific papers this year.  Elizabeth Bach is our lead scientist.

To see the end of the report which has the map of what we burned, the list of fires, and list of fire crew you can find them here:

https://www.nachusagrasslands.org/uploads/5/8/4/6/58466593/nachusa_grasslands_annual_fire_report_2025_2026_opt.pdf

Posted in Prescribed Burn, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) control

Posted on April 16, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Don Osmond, volunteer steward

Wild parsnip is a monocarpic perennial, usually taking 2-3 years to flower.  I chose a 4 acre area in southwestern Wisconsin to evaluate my control efforts over time.  Habitats ranged from dry degraded prairie to mesic lowland planted with forage.  Spring burns occurred in 2021 & 2023.  All the work was performed by me, so the methods are consistent year to year.

Herbiciding was performed using a calibrated backpack sprayer with 0.5% Garlon 4 (1.1 quarts/acre of product) & 0.5% MSO.  This concentration was chosen based on an experiment consisting of a control plot & plots sprayed at 0.5, 1 and 1.5%, then monitored one year later.  All 3 plots had similar very low densities of parsnip one year after spraying, compared to the high density control plot.  It probably would be safer to settle on 1% concentration to account for variables, but I anecdotally had good results previously at 0.5%, so I stuck with that.  The minimum concentration for broadleaf weeds on the Garlon 4 label is 1 quart/acre.  Herbiciding was never done in the remnants.  Spring spraying started in the first 2 weeks of May, depending on how cool it had been.  Fall spraying started the second week of September (rosettes were in the process of emerging before then).  I limited fall application to known, higher density patches since tall vegetation makes area searches unproductive.

Wild parsnip with pink flagging was herbicide treated, with untreated plants behind. Photo by B Kleiman

For mechanical control, I use a sharpened Parsnip Predator shovel to sever the root a few inches below the soil.  I place the shovel at the parsnip base to center the shovel notch on the stem, move the shovel back 2”, hold it about 30 degrees off vertical & slice the root with even force (no stomping or prying).  If the plant doesn’t pull up easily, I move the shovel laterally & make another slice.  If the plant isn’t swollen at the top of the stem, I throw it on the ground.  If swollen, but flowers aren’t emerging, I throw it on the ground & cut the stem below the swelling with the shovel.  Before June 15, if the plant is blooming or close to it,  I throw it on the ground & cut the stem below the terminal flower & also below the lowest flower.  Cutting the stem reduces the possibility that stem carbohydrates will be used to reflower, although I have no proof that is possible on a stem without a root.  After June 15, I bag the cut plants & let them compost on site.  I deposit the bags away from roads & trails since animals may break the bags open, allowing seed spread.  My method is an attempt to keep the job manageable for one person.  A 2 person team is ideal for digging & bagging.  Keep in mind the plant is toxic to the skin, so long gauntlet waterproof gloves & a long sleeved shirt should be worn.  Peak bloom for the early plants in my area occurs in late June.  The first pass of mechanical control is in the first 2 weeks of June, with a second pass starting the 3rd week.  The latter is to find late blooming plants, which are small & not in bloom during the first pass & thus easily missed.  Many plants will have green seeds by July 9.  Mechanical control can continue until July 15 (when seeds start to drop), but I try to be done by July 1 so I can switch to white sweet clover control.  Despite trying to be meticulous, I always find a handful of plants each year that were missed & went to seed.  For example, I did a second pass on June 19 & found a small but surprising amount of blooming plants July 1 to July 19.  So a 3rd pass may be necessary.  I’ve even occasionally found blooming plants, some quite tall, in September.  If you only have limited time for one pass, shoot for July 4 in southern Wisconsin & stack the cut plants in as few piles as possible, away from roads & trails.  This is well before seed drop, yet late enough to catch the early as well as many of the later blooming plants.

Bernie Buchholz with a Parsnip Predator weed spade. These are for sale by The Prairie Enthusiasts. It is a modified spade with the blade cut down, and the handle turned 90 degrees. The pink tape helps you find it in the grass. Photo by B Kleiman

Here are the results:

Gallons of herbicide solution used

2020 (fall only): 9

2021: 30

2022: 9

2023: 9

2024: 6

2025: 2

Hours for mechanical control

2021: 19

2022: 12

2023: 6

2024: 7

2025: 8

Estimated plant density over this 4.5 year time period decreased from moderate-dense to light.  Notice that mechanical control hours plateaued after 2 years, probably because at that point most of the time was spent walking around looking for plants.

The results roughly correlate with the following:

1) Cain, Nancy, et al.  “The biology of Canadian weeds: Pastinaca sativa L.”  Canadian Journal of Plant Science volume 90 (2) page 217 (2010).  They report the seedbank is viable for 2 to 4 years.

2) A prairie expert plus the above reference indicate most parsnips produce flowers in the 2nd or 3rd year but some take 5 to 6 years.

Using my method, 2 factors can lengthen the time for adequate control.

1) Missed plants due to poor visibility in heavy vegetation, plants that bloom at very low heights or very late blooming plants (as late as September).  It is very easy to miss short, blooming plants in tall vegetation.  Especially since invasion was widespread at this site, requiring a search of the entire area, except for the dry remnants where parsnip success was poor.

2) Digging disrupts soil, bringing seeds to the surface where they are more likely to germinate.  Proper use of the Parsnip Predator (no prying) minimizes this.

If practitioners are not meticulous, time for adequate control will be longer than what I experienced.  For example, not making a second mechanical pass, thus missing a surprising amount of late blooming plants.  Or missing a year, allowing substantial seed drop.  That would severely set efforts back & illustrates the importance of careful site selection & control area size to match the predicted resources over the years needed.

Herbiciding is particularly effective after a spring burn since thatch removal makes rosettes quite visible.  Herbiciding can be skipped if there are enough people to complete 2 thorough mechanical passes for the number of years needed.  My results are a good example of how herbicides can be a force multiplier if resources are limited.  Without them, there would be no hope of making a meaningful improvement at this site with just one worker.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Effects of Brush Pile Burning in the Chicago region

Posted on April 9, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

Antonio Del Vallé, Emma Leavens, Meghan Midgley

This is a shortened version of a longer post from the Strategies for Stewards blog. You can find the full-length version at this link: https://woodsandprairie.blogspot.com/2025/12/effects-of-brush-pile-burning-in.html

Research project summary:

Over the past three years, we have conducted research on brush pile burning and its effects on plants, fungi, and soil across the Chicago region. We’ve had the pleasure of collaborating with many different organizations, forest preserves, stewards, and volunteers across the region to determine where brush has been burned and collect data related to plant and soil communities. Our project has three main themes/questions: 1) how do plants and soil change through time following brush pile burning?; 2) how do differences in habitat, burning techniques, and type of wood being cleared/burned impact the succession of plant/soil communities following burning?; 3) are there post-burn restoration techniques that encourage desirable plant and soil communities?

Removal of invasive woody species (e.g. buckthorn, honeysuckle, etc.) and overstory thinning of native weedy species (e.g. maple, basswood, etc.) are important/essential restoration techniques to restore oak woodland, savanna, and grassland habitats in the Chicago region (and anywhere there is invasive brush that cannot be controlled by prescribed fire alone). Many regional practitioners and stewards eliminate resulting woody debris by conducting brush pile burns. This approach reduces effort, cost, and potential soil compaction of removing wood from natural areas. Additionally, it fosters social engagement and camaraderie amongst stewards through group “cut and drag” work days and gathering around the fire afterwards.

As researchers, we want to understand what happens when brush piles are burned in natural areas. Brush pile burning may change soil chemistry, and plant and fungal biodiversity. In our research, we’re working with stewards and managers of natural areas throughout the Chicago region to assess the above- and belowground effects of brush pile burning, identify the burning strategies that maximize or minimize these impacts, and characterize post-burn succession.

Preliminary results: How does burning brush affect the ecology of the burn pile footprint and how do soil and plants respond over time?

For the preliminary results detailed below, we will mainly draw from our studies of brush pile burns conducted at The Morton Arboretum and Forest Glen Woods (Cook County) from 2015-2023 (unless otherwise noted). We present data for each preserve separately, since each preserve has slightly different habitats/plant communities, and brush pile burns may consist of different levels of burn intensity.

Soil temperatures can reach values of 80-350 ℃ at 2 centimeters depth within the centers of burn piles and stay above 60 ℃ for 3-5 days after active flames are put out. Below is an example of soil temperatures observed underneath a brush pile at Harms Woods in Cook County.

These temperatures are high/long enough to negatively impact seed viability and mycorrhizal fungi. It takes 4 years for mycorrhizal fungi to return to pre-burn values.

Microbes (fungi and bacteria) are needed to balance soil nutrients, so their fluctuations through time may impact soil nutrient changes through time. Decreases in mycorrhizal fungi abundance or changes in the fungi community may inhibit the growth of plant species that require specific mycorrhizal associations. Though there are significant decreases in overall microbe abundance, we do observe some unusual pyrophilic fungi species (Pyronema omphalodes) 0-1 years after burning.

Brush pile burning increases soil pH, nitrate, and phosphate through ash deposits. Nitrate and phosphate return to pre-burn levels within 2 and 5 years respectively. pH values remain significantly higher (more alkaline), 7 years post-burn.

The creation of more alkaline soils may provide unique habitat conditions for rare/pyrophilic plants, create conditions that support invasive species, and/or make the area difficult for more conservative plants to grow.

Spiranthes ovalis erostellata

The state endangered Geranium bicknellii is known to exclusively grow on the edge of burn pile footprints in a few natural areas in the region. Additionally, we’ve made observations of other rare plant species, such as this Spiranthes ovalis erostellata, which was found in an 8 year old burn scar.

Plant cover and quality is greatly reduced in the first growing season after burning. Weedy/hardy plants such as tall goldenrod, pokeweed, and wintercress are observed 0-3 years after burning.

As soil pH and nutrients balance through time, the plant community successionally returns to its previous composition. Overall, variation in plant quality within burn scars is dependent on the surrounding plant quality within the natural area. Plant quality variation may also be related to burn intensity and other factors. We have more work to do to uncover the relationship of burn intensity and other management decisions to soil biogeochemistry and plant communities in burn scars.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A fifteen-year revisit of a prairie planting

Posted on April 2, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Mary Vieregg, Nachusa Grasslands Volunteer Steward, with photo and captions by Bill Kleiman

2008: Mary and Jim Vieregg planting their seed
November 2008: Planting seed

In 2008, the conversion of 6.25 acres of cornfield into reconstructed prairie began in the Clear Creek Knolls East Unit of Nachusa Grasslands. The acreage offered the opportunity to collect and plant seed suitable for three different habitats all in one planting.

During the 2008 growing season, 225 pounds of bulk seed of 176 species were collected to plant in the unit. This is uncleaned seed where seed weight is perhaps 40% of bulk weight and 60% is chaff.  The seeds were processed and combined into dry-mesic, mesic, and wet-mesic mixes. The average per acre seed bulk weight was 36 pounds of seed.  A complete list of the species collected and planted was kept at the time.

How the field was planted:

After the corn was harvested in 2008, the stubble was burned and the field was harrowed. The seed mixes were planted in late November using a New Idea Drop Seeder. Multiple passes were made to facilitate even distribution of the seeds. The dry/mesic, mesic, and wet/mesic mixes were planted according to the soil type and relative topography in different parts of the field. No carrier was used with the seed.

Stewards also collected additional seed during the growing seasons of 2009 and 2010 for overseeding the planting. Another 99.5 pounds of seed were overseeded by hand into the acreage in areas where native growth seemed particularly sparse. Additional species were also added in the overseeding mixes bringing the species total up to 192.

Fire and weed management for 15 years:

Since the last overseeding was completed in 2010, prescribed fire has run through the unit approximately every other year primarily because the planting is a subset of a larger management unit. Additionally, there has been consistent surveillance and control of the relatively modest populations of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), white sweet clover (Melilotus albus),and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The populations of all three of these weed species have declined but still require surveillance and control.

July 2020 photo showing goats rue, western sunflower, spidorwort, big bluestem, wild quinine, and pale purple coneflower

So…What’s Growing in the Planting 15 Years Later????

The planting was visited 15 times beginning in April and ending in late October, 2025. During each visit, each new species observed was recorded.

Here are a few observations:

  1. 134, or 70% of the 192 species in the 2008-2010 seed mixes were found in the planting during 2025.
  • There were 30 native species found in the planting that were not knowingly included in the original seed mix.
  • There were 7 non-native species found in small scattered populations.
  • The C-values (coefficients of conservatism) of the native species found in 2025 range from 0 (least conservative) to 10 (most conservative). Of those species planted in 2008-2010 and found growing in 2025, 57 or 43% of the species have high C-values (8, 9, or 10).
  • The National Wetland Categories – Upland (UPL), Facultative Upland (FACU), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Wet (FACW), and Obligate (OBL) – provide insight into the habitat preference of a species:

64% of the planted UPL species were found.

84% of the planted FACU species were found.

84% of the planted FAC species were found.

64% of the planted FACW species were found.

53% of the planted OBL species were found.

  • One of the least successful genera in the planting was Carex; out of 8 species planted, only 3 were found in 2025. (This was a surprise given the quantity of seed collected and dispersed.)
  • Thirteen (43%) of the 30 native species not knowingly planted are rated FACU; 5 (16%) species are rated UPL; 5 (16%) species are rated FACW; 4 (13%) species are rated FAC; 3 (10%) species are rated OBL.
An introduced birdsfoot trefoil in this nice planting, so the plant was coiled up and then sprayed with foliar broadleaf herbicide to lessen the off target damage.
22 plugs of queen of the prairie were planted and they took in the swale section
Mary Vieregg has led many tours at Nachusa over the years.
Another view of this nice planting with gay feather, rattlesnake master, white and cream baptisia, golden alexander, bee balm, tall coreopsis, yellow coneflower, and culvers root. It is crazy nice! – BK

Read the entire report here on our Friends of Nachusa Grasslands site at: https://www.nachusagrasslands.org/uploads/5/8/4/6/58466593/dropseed_north_15_years_later.pdf

In the report I ponder what happened to the 30% of species we did not find.  You will also find the seed list I refer to where the species found are noted. 

People have asked me whether the time we have spent and the work we have done at Nachusa over the last 27 years has been “worth it”. This 15 year “revisit” helped me answer that question. I think Aldo Leopold’s words again seem most fitting in this context: “Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods or poets, but humbler folk may circumvent this restriction if they know how.” Yes, it has been worth it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

2026 Workshop – Shaw Nature Reserve – Registration

Posted on March 26, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

Shaw Nature Reserve – Gray Summit, MO

Grassland Restoration Network Annual Workshop

May 27 & 28, 2026 

We would like to extend an early invitation for you to join us for the annual Grassland Restoration Network Workshop. This two-day workshop will feature insights from grassland restoration practice and research happening at Shaw Nature Reserve. The workshop will be held on May 27th and 28th. A schedule of planned events as well as lodging recommendations is included below.

REGISTRATION: Follow this link to register.

Registration will open to everyone on March 26th, so be sure to register before then if you intend on attending. The number of participants is limited, and we are trying to have representation from a wide range of folks, both in terms of geographically and agencies. For this reason, we would appreciate it if you could please keep your organization/agency reservation numbers to 6 or less.

DAY ONE – May 27th

This year will also feature Doug Ladd as our keynote speaker. For 31 years he was Director of Conservation for The Nature Conservancy – Missouri, where he managed science, land management, and conservation real estate activities. He has been involved with fire management and fire ecology, conservation planning, natural area assessment, and ecological management, restoration, and research for more than thirty-five years, with emphasis on vegetation, ecological restoration and fire ecology.

DAY TWO – May 28th

Your SNR hosts – Brad Delfeld (Manager, Ecological Restoration) and Quinn Long (Director, Shaw Nature Reserve)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

2026 – Annual Workshop – Shaw Nature Reserve

Posted on March 19, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

Shaw Nature Reserve – Gray Summit, MO

Grassland Restoration Network Annual Workshop

May 27 & 28, 2026 – Registration opens Thursday, March 26th

Registration for this year’s Grassland Restoration Network annual workshop will go live next Thursday (03/26/2026). Join us at Shaw Nature Reserve in Gray Summit, Missouri, to learn, exchange, and connect. Since 1980, Shaw Nature Reserve staff and a dedicated community of volunteers have been getting their hands dirty and turning vision into habitat. The workshop will include tours and discussion our different grassland restoration projects, which include:

A chronosequence of one, two, and three year old prairie plantings displaying the conversion of old-field successional woodlands into a prairie-savanna complex. Wolf Run Grassland Restoration blog post and Timelapse of conversion

-Striking remnant glades, with a rich species diversity in full bloom, featuring glade-endemic species and unique habitat.

-The beginning stages of establishing an Army Corps of Engineers wetland mitigation bank

-Several ongoing and completed research projects will be discussed, including mycorrhizal fungi inoculation effects on establishing conservative species in a nascent prairie planting, varying mowing frequencies’ effects on establishing prairie plantings, and grass-specific herbicide as a means to enhance forb diversity in established prairies

This year will also feature Doug Ladd as our keynote speaker. For 31 years he was Director of Conservation for The Nature Conservancy – Missouri, where he managed science, land management, and conservation real estate activities. He has been involved with fire management and fire ecology, conservation planning, natural area assessment, and ecological management, restoration, and research for more than thirty-five years, with emphasis on vegetation, ecological restoration and fire ecology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Knife vs Hammer brush mulcher

Posted on March 13, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Bill Kleiman

Updated March 2026. We are on our second winter using a knife mulcher.   

Link to a 2 minute time lapse video of a hammer mulcher clearing small brush to show off a treasure: https://youtu.be/6SrNRwR49tY

Above is a Cat 110 horsepower 299 D3XE skid steer we use with a new Denis Cimaf DAF-180D brand knife mulcher.   You can see some of the 27 knives there which are bolted to the rotor.  Note the thick ribs that go around the rotor.  The ribs keep the knives from grabbing too much of a bite of the wood.  Like on a chainsaw chain the rakers in front of the cutters keep the knives from grabbing the wood and stopping the saw abruptly (which leads to kickback in the case of a chainsaw).  Without the ribs the knives would grab a stump and stop instantly, causing a lot of stress to the machine.  The ribs keep the rotor spinning fast so the knives can slice off wood in bite-sized pieces.  The dealer claims the hydraulic motor that spins the rotor is also well designed to spin fast and recover its speed (spool up) when it does get slowed down.  For sure, the rotor does slow down when you are cutting heavies.  There is a limit to the magic.

Above shows a brand new knife and a partially worn knife.  We tend to sharpen our knives about every 8 hours of cutting. Typically, every morning we sharpen knives even if the day before we only mowed 4 hours.

Above is knife needing some sharpening

Above is that knife sharpened. You want to take metal off that entire surface to keep the cutting angle just right.

Above, the result of mowing into metal junk. Stay back from fence rows with the knives.

Above shows a typical result of a knife mulcher.  Minimal ground disturbance due to the wide rubber tracks and small wood chips. Keeping the knives above the soil keeps their sharpness longer.

Above, the knife mulcher makes a fine mulch.  The knives can clear more habitat because of this clean cutting.  This style mulcher cuts very fast. It also looks tidy.

Above is a brand new knife and a very worn down knife.  There is a day and night difference in the performance of a sharp vs a dull knife, similar to a chainsaw chain.  The knives are dulled by rocks, fence posts, and sandy soils.   We have had a few teeth get broken from encountering hard objects.  The knives currently cost about $60 a piece! To replace the entire set of knives, and their nut and bolts will set you back about $1,800. So you want to sharpen them until they are used up.

Above I am sharpening knives using the sharpener supplied with the purchase of the mulcher.  This sharpener has a powerful two stroke motor that is spinning a 3M brand of very course sand paper.  The sanding paper disc lasts a long time, unless you bump into an unexpected edge and the $10 grinder paper tears. Sigh. 

The teeth can be sharpened in about 15 to 20 minutes.   The sharpener is loud and we leave the shop door open to vent the shop.  We also grease the zerks and do other work on the skid loader. 

Above shows my tools splayed out as I change a bunch of worn out knives.  The nuts are held on with 400 hundred pounds delivered by a large torque wrench. To get the bolts loose it takes a breaker bar and 4 foot extension tube and your body weight.  Once loose, then you can switch to the cordless nut driver.  This Denis Cimaf mulcher came with clear instructions and a kit of tools needed.  The teeth can last for a few to several months, or a few can be trashed on the first junk you run into.

Above shows a damaged tool holder, the part that holds the knife.  This damage is a bummer.  I mowed into some buried two inch thick steel plate and it broke the bolt that holds the knife, tore off the knife, and bent the holder.   We carefully ground the holder to get it to continue holding a knife. If it was a bit more damaged then a welding shop will use a cutting torch and remove the holder and weld in a new one, and hopefully the rotor is still balanced.  I had this procedure done once on a hammer mulcher.  Is this model prone to this damage?  Could be.

Hammer Mulcher:

Above is hammer style brush mulcher.  Those hammers are tipped with carbide, the twin V you see on the ends.  This design can take a lot of punishment from hitting rocks and abandoned junk.  This is a big advantage to this hammer style. No sharpening is involved.

Using the hammer mulcher I mowed this abandoned implement.  The hammers showed no damage but I tore this junk in several pieces.   Would the knife mulcher take this abuse? Nope.

Above is a fence post mowed into pieces by the hammer mulcher.   No harm done.

Above, the hammer mulcher leaves a bit more of a rough mulch. The hammer mulcher takes longer to mulch trees.  If you are mowing heavy brush the knife mulcher is noticeably more productive. Mowing shrubs is about the same with either mulcher.

Bottom line advice on knife vs hammer mulchers:

  • Both are expensive.
  • The hammer mulcher is good for sites with rocks and abandoned junk.
  • The knife mulcher is very productive, cutting through wood much faster.
  • The knife mulcher needs sharpening every 8 hours or so, and knives replaced at times, and the entire set of expensive knives replaced at least annually.   Do you have a shop to get out of the weather to do this?  You can tough it outside, but you might be wishing you had bought a hammer mulcher.
  • Don’t trade in your old hammer mulcher.  We have a 15 year old Fecon and it is built to last for a long time.  Check the belt drive annually, clean out the belly of it.  We currently are using our hammer mulcher on a tract that has a lot of abandoned metal junk, and it does quite well on brush and trees, and we will use the knife mulcher when we get to cleaner ground.

Above, knife mulcher is clearing invasive honeysuckle and small trees from an oak savanna.  Note minimal ground disturbance.

This is the link I started this post with. It is a 2 minute time lapse video of a hammer mulcher clearing small brush to show off a treasure. People enjoy time lapse: https://youtu.be/6SrNRwR49tY

End.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Using an Articulating Hedge Trimmer on Brush and Weeds

Posted on February 12, 2026 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Don Osmund, volunteer steward

The tool of choice for this is a brush saw.  But some projects may benefit by adding an articulating hedge trimmer, where the blade assembly angle is adjustable so it can cut parallel to the ground while the operator stands upright.  I often work alone on a large site & I wanted to make better time by cutting a wider swath.  Also, I work on steep rocky slopes & I have a fear (perhaps baseless) of stumbling & somehow making contact with a brush saw blade.

The discussion forum at http://www.lawnsite.com was particularly helpful in selecting a brand/model along with usage & maintenance tips.  Battery technology has improved to the point that I didn’t have to buy a gas powered model.  I don’t have a pickup truck or outdoor shed, so storing & transporting gas is a safety issue, plus gas tools are noisy & smelly.  Several brands would be good choices, but I selected Stihl because there were plenty of professional users on the forum & a nearby power center sells & services them.  I chose the HLA-66 because compared to other models, it weighed less, was less expensive & fit my use case of semi-professional reliability.  Multiple people on the forum commented that this model held up well during commercial use, but probably wouldn’t take abuse as well as the more expensive models.  It has two 20” long double sided blades, so it cuts on both the backward & forward strokes.  The blades can fold up against the shaft for transport.  For a mix of light density vegetation/high on-time & high density/low on-time I get 3.5 hours use on an AP300S battery.  So with 2 batteries I can cut all day.

Above: The trimmer in transport mode (55” length). Blade protector is in place, tool is secured to the car in 2 places with straps & battery is removed for safety. Cardboard is in case the trimmer contacted poison ivy, wild parsnip or knapweed. The Darwin’s Grip can be folded closer to the trimmer shaft, but I decided not to test the quality of the quick release lever.

The first challenge was how to avoid abusing my body during long periods of use.  When cutting ground level vegetation, the tool is fairly heavy & I found myself stooping over too much, which is hard on my back.  A special handle called a Darwin’s Grip (the yellow attachment in the photo) was necessary because it provides a lifting point near the bottom of the shaft to support the weight of the motor & blades.  It’s a replacement for the D handle that comes with the tool & is adjusted as follows.  The clamp position on the tool shaft is chosen so the blades are the proper distance from ground when your arm is straight.  The clamp angle on the shaft is chosen so that your wrist isn’t bent unnaturally when the tool is on either side of your body.  The angle between the tool shaft & Darwin handle can be easily changed with a quick release lever.  I adjusted it for good leverage when lifting the tool while not applying too much pressure on my hands.  It can take several weeks to dial in the settings for an individual operator, which may be a problem if the trimmer is used by multiple people.  After adjustment, the arm you use for the Darwin will be straight, the blades will naturally hang parallel to the ground at the desired height, & it will be easy to lift the tool up and over vegetation.  Also necessary to support the top of the shaft (where the battery is) is a shoulder strap that comes with the trimmer.  At first this seemed inadequate, so I tried a cheap harness that distributes the weight on both shoulders, but it didn’t allow me to switch the tool to the other side of my body & didn’t hold the tool low enough.  Perhaps the more expensive harnesses from Stihl, Makita or Husqvarna would work better.  Now that I’ve used the single shoulder strap all summer, I like it.  It’s simple, allows me the relief of putting the trimmer on either side of my body & supports the weight well.

The main caveat with this tool is the wide swath means it has to fight through a lot more vegetation than a brush saw, & battery power instead of gas is a further limitation.  It’s great for small diameter brush, wild parsnip, goldenrod, thistle or sweet clover if the grass density is light.  It’s also good for cutting warm season grasses up high (where stem density is low) to prevent seed set.  In low density vegetation with no rocks, cut height is 2-3”.  For high density clover patches it tends to be 4-6”, which may be too high if the lower stem buds survived the shade created by the patch & resprout.  Next year I’ll work on my technique to get lower.  Some weeds need to be cut close to the ground to minimize reflowering & they are sometimes embedded in dense grass.  The tool will still work in that situation, but you have to slow down to the point that a brush saw might be just as fast or faster.  Plus dense vegetation will shorten the battery run time.  In dense vegetation, I found it’s better to cut half the blade width at a time & instead of sweeping the tool in an arc, angle the blade into the uncut weeds & drag it backwards.  Perhaps a gas powered model would work better in grass.

After every use, spray both sides of the blades with Fluid Film, which lubricates, prevents sap buildup & doesn’t harm plants.  If you have patience, blades can be sharpened using a hand file without disassembly.   Grinding wheels are faster but remove too much material, so use a narrow belt sander or sandpaper discs.  Disassembly takes skill as you have to torque the bolts just right or vibration will loosen them, or the blades/motor can overheat if they are too tight.  If you pay to have it done (about $30), choose a power center that has experience on these tools.  A sharp blade will increase tool life.  The gearbox is easy to clean out & lube with Stihl Superlub FS.  Incompatible greases can cause a sticky disaster, so clean out the old grease if you intend to try a different type.

I like this trimmer because it’s a good match for my situation, where I need to cut scattered patches of weeds over a large area while working alone.  Brush saws (or in some cases, perhaps a gas powered hedge trimmer) are a better choice for large areas of weeds in dense grass, large diameter brush, sites where resources are available for multiple brush saw operators or when cutting warm season grasses low to the ground in order to increase sunlight to seeded forbs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

First Steps in Bringing Back Prairie

Posted on January 15, 2026 by Mike Saxton

Mike Saxton – Executive Director – Friends of Nachusa Grasslands

The Friends of Nachusa Grasslands recently protected a 195-acre tract adjacent to The Nature Conservancy’s Nachusa Grasslands. The new acquisition is an important site with restoration potential for high-levels of native biodiversity.

Left – 1939 aerial Right – 2025 aerial

In the 1939 aerial (left), you can see row crop fields and can make out cattle paths through pasture (likely native prairie). Oaks are scattered in the southwest corner of the unit.

In the current aerial (right), the row crop acreage remains virtually unchanged while all of the pasture has gone through old field succession, transitioning from open prairie to closed canopy woodland. The formerly open oak corner is now fully stocked and densely treed.

Day after closing on the property, staff and volunteers were running forestry mowers, shredding the light-choking brush

When Friends of Nachusa Grasslands protected this tract in December 2025, the woodlands were an impenetrable thicket of bush honeysuckle. The once open pasture (presumably prairie plants in 1939) is now a majority black cherry and Osage orange. The south, southwest and west facing slopes have pockets of little bluestem in scattered eastern red cedar openings. In the late 1990s, prairie petunia (Ruellia humilis) was still growing in the few remaining light gaps.

Eventually, we will restore the row crop fields to high diversity, rich habitat for which Nachusa Grasslands is well known. Going from row-crop to prairie is a fairly straightforward process.

But restoring and caring for 65-acres of formerly open prairie/pasture which is now a cherry and Osage orange woodland is a much more challenging task. What can our investment of time, energy and stewardship restore?

We are assessing the challenges and opportunities this project presents and after just a month of ownership, nearly 50 acres of brush has been mowed and scores of trees felled. We are energized and eager!

Left: south facing slope where brush has been mowed and trees cleared. Perhaps some remnant prairie plants remain? Right: A good operator with a skid loader and grapple is an amazing resource.
Left: In the uplands, former prairie pasture turned to Osage orange dominated areas. A challenge for sawyers and mowers. Right: Once the brush is mowed, you begin to “see the forest for the trees” and the amount of work that lays ahead.

How soon can we begin to manage the area with fire? How much (perhaps precious little) remnant prairie was hidden in the thickets? After decades of shading and successional transition, will there be unforeseen invasives springing up? At what point do we actively begin seeding? What is a realistic timeline for our stewardship efforts? These and many, many others are the questions we are pondering.

Our work is that of trial-and-error and we learn by doing. In the months and years to come, a combination of invasive species control, Rx fire, and generous seed addition will be invested in the site. We will document progress and share our results. Stewardship has a beginning but no end!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Save the date! 2026 Workshop – Shaw Nature Reserve

Posted on January 8, 2026 by Mike Saxton

Shaw Nature Reserve – Gray Summit, MO

Grassland Restoration Network Annual Workshop

May 27 & 28, 2026 – Save the date!

Join us in Gray Summit, Missouri to exchange, learn and connect with restoration practitioners from across the region. Shaw Nature Reserve began creating prairie plantings in 1980 and started burning woodlands in 1992. Volunteers have always played a critical role in restoration success. Current projects include wetland mitigation bank establishment, logging of old field successional woodlands and conversion to prairie plantings, and glade restoration. Research on mycorrhizal fungi inoculation, establishment mowing practices, and grass specific herbicide will be highlighted. Remnant glades will be striking in late May with their rich flora on display. 

Full agenda and registration coming in early 2026.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments