A Study on Controlling Bush Honeysuckle

Posted on April 25, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Kaleb Baker

Photo 1. One of the many signs delineating the honeysuckle subplots

Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) is an invasive shrub that flourishes along forest edges and in open woodlands. Amur honeysuckle shades out native flora with its early leaf-out and prolonged leaf retention, and when left uncontrolled, can produce a near monoculture, threatening biodiversity.

Land stewards everywhere have implemented a variety of different eradication methods, including hand pulling, cut-and-treat with herbicide, foliar-applied herbicide from backpacks or helicopters, basal bark herbicide treatments, and prescribed fire. Continuous treatments and monitoring are needed to eradicate Amur honeysuckle, making the cost, effort, time specificity (amount of nontarget damage), and applicability (when and where a method can work) important factors to consider.

This study explored how effective basal bark treatments and prescribed fire are at controlling honeysuckle, the amount of nontarget damage from those treatments, and the subsequent vegetative recovery. Basal bark and fire are commonly used control methods. The basal bark herbicide was made with 2.5 gallons of Garlon 4 Ultra mixed into 12.5 gallons of basal oil making 15 gallons of 16.67% Garlon 4 Ultra, equivalent to 10% triclopyr ester because Garlon 4 Ultra is 60.45% triclopyr. Basal bark treatments involved spraying the 10% solution of triclopyr around each plant’s base from a backpack, which was both quick and easy. The nozzle was pointed mostly downward (not horizontally), spraying with moderate pressure using a narrow cone pattern.

Figure 1. Depiction of spraying the bottom 15-30 cm (6-12 in) of a bush honeysuckle from 2 directions so the herbicide fully covers the surface all stems to the point of nearly running off. Application sometimes required 3 directions or spraying the inside of a ring of stems to ensure complete coverage.

In this study we included 800 individually marked Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) at 5 different sites within Nachusa Grasslands and Franklin Creek State Natural Area (Ogle and Lee counties in northwest Illinois). In order to see if the season of application affected honeysuckle mortality or the extent of damage to non-target flora, five basal bark treatments were applied in fall 2017 (11/26 – 12/17), winter 2018 (1/28), early spring 2018 (3/10-3/11), late spring 2018 (5/4-5/5), and a control with no application. (Application caveat: there was no snow during any application). Prescribed fire was administered to half of each of the 5 sites in spring 2018. Honeysuckle mortality was checked in the early fall of 2018 to allow the honeysuckle time to fully die.

All basal bark applications were equally effective at killing Amur honeysuckle (statistically indifferent), regardless of treatment timing. There was an insignificant variation in how effective the treatments were with the late spring treatment only being 96.7% effective. The combined mortality rate of herbicide treatments was 98.4% across all four herbicide treatment seasons, compared to a 2.5% mortality with no basal bark treatment. Mortality was not dependent upon honeysuckle size (height: <1m to 3+m tall, number of stems: 1-12+ stems, or root collar size: 10-150+mm). Prescribed fire did not impact mortality positively or negatively.

Figure 2. Graph shows the bush honeysuckle mortality when checked the fall after treatment with no difference between treatment timings (98.4% averaged across treatment seasons).
 

However, if the plants had been checked earlier in the year, we would have concluded basal bark treatments were ineffective. A subset of individuals across treatments was opportunistically checked on 5/13/2018 to see if they were leafing out. Of the 317 honeysuckle checked, 75% of the treated honeysuckle showed signs of leaf out.

ControlFallWinterEarly SpringLate SpringGrand Total
Leafing Out6443464754254
No Leaf Out02116161063
Grand Total6464626364317
% Leafing Out100%67%74%75%84%80%
Figure 3. Table shows the number of individual honeysuckle found to be leafing out or not on 5/13/2018, just over one week after applying the Late Spring treatment.
Photo 2. A treated honeysuckle (right) that leafed out then died. The honeysuckle on the left was not been treated and is healthy.
 

A 1m2 quadrat was placed around 200 Amur honeysuckle to measure nontarget damage to the plant community in spring 2018. The “ring-of-death” equated to about a 10-inch radius on average. The size of the nontarget damage did not differ based on fire treatment, basal bark treatment season, or any measured size of honeysuckle.


Photo 3. The amount of nontarget damage (aka “ring-of-death”) on year one (2018)
Photo 4. Looking down at one of 200 1m2 quadrats used to measure nontarget impacts of basal bark and fire treatments.



Figure 4. Shown is a chart series of percent living vegetation coverage (native and non-native species) (y-axis) of 80 quadrats with the control treatment on the left in dark blue and the herbicide treatments following in chronological order. Within each chart, the x-axis is the year 2018-2021. Each dot represents the total percent cover of each quadrat, the triangle is the mean percent cover of that treatment that year, and the dotted line shows a linear trendline.

The tendency to revegetate is further exemplified when looking exclusively at native species as shown in Figure 5, meaning the treated areas aren’t being recolonized just by nonnative species.

Figure 5. Shown is a chart series of percent living native vegetation coverage (y-axis) of 80 quadrats with the control treatment on the left in dark blue and the herbicide treatments following in chronological order. Within each chart, the x-axis is the year 2018-2021. Each dot represents the total percent cover of each quadrat, the triangle is the mean percent cover of that treatment that year, and the dotted line shows a linear trendline

However, the communities were simplified in the area surrounding treated honeysuckle. The species richness was impacted by the herbicide treatments. Averaging across all four years, the early spring treatment had 1.4 fewer species than the control and the other herbicide treatments had 1.9-2.3 fewer species than the untreated honeysuckle (Figure 6). Though, there did not appear to be any species or group of species that were particularly susceptible.


Figure 6. Each box shows the richness of native (red) and non-native (blue) species from different herbicide treatments from 2018-2021 from 80 quadrats. The bold center bars are the median. The hinges are the middle 50% of the data, and the whiskers include data from the 1st to 3rd quartiles.

Note (mostly speculative): Some managers prefer using a paint roller instead of a backpack sprayer to minimize nontarget damage. This could limit nontarget damage but could also limit target species mortality because less herbicide is applied to the target. Other managers speculate that rainfall soon after application may increase nontarget damage preferring to not basal bark unless there will be 48 before precipitation.

Key take-aways:

  • Basal bark treatments were highly effective at killing bush honeysuckle (98.4%).
  • While prescribed fire was not effective at killing bush honeysuckle, it did not inhibit the basal bark treatments so fire should continue to be implemented to maintain fire-adapted communities.
  • Basal bark treatments did impact the local vegetative communities (~10 inch radius on average).
  • The “ring-of-death” recovers in time but is slightly simplified.
  • There was some evidence that early spring basal bark treatments had slightly less nontarget damage (~0.5 higher species richness).

For managers, basal bark treatments are another tool in the toolbox with advantages and disadvantages. Below is my current mental framework for some common treatment options and considerations.

ConsiderationsCut-and-treatBasal BarkFoliarForestry Mow
Tool CostLowHighMediumHigh
EffortHighMediumLowLow
Time per AreaHighLow/Medium (stem density dependent)LowLow
SpecificityHighMediumLowLow
TimingNearly anytimeNot summerNot dormant seasonAvoid growing season
ApplicabilityCan be used most placesShould not be used in wet or super sensitive areasShould not be used in sensitive areasShould not be used in wet or sensitive areas

A peer reviewed paper detailing this study will be published this year. Below is a similar post as Kaleb’s. On the Blogsite you can search for related posts, and you can get our weekly posting sent conveniently to your email.

A family affair: Successful control of invasive honeysuckle with basal bark herbicide
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

GRN Workshop at Nachusa Grasslands September 10 &11, 2024

Posted on April 18, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Bill Kleiman

Registration will open in June.

Here is a quick update. We would start the workshop mid-morning September 10 and end mid-afternoon on the 11th. We have limited space so we may not be able to accept all who wish to attend. If you can’t make this workshop, we do plan to re-start our annual one-day open house for resource managers in 2025.

These are the themes of tour discussions we hope to cover. We will limit tour sizes to keep the discussion easy and repeat the tours so you can hear what you like.

  • Prairie plantings. We have many very good plantings and some poor ones. Hike through several and discuss lessons learned.
  • Brush work and fire. We will look at habitats where we have used frequent fire in combination with brush mowing and basal bark herbicide.
  • Hand harvesting seed. We will cover how we map and track our seed harvests. How we dry, store, mill, mix and plant seeds. We will also discuss seed harvesting for savanna and woodland.
  • Science. We have a robust science program that we will explain as we look at projects in the field.
  • Fire break preparation and operations: We will look at fire break equipment and pumper units in use. We will look at several fire breaks and burn units to discuss what we have learned to help us get a lot of fire on the ground.
  • Bison grazing program. What results are we seeing after ten years?
  • Volunteer Stewardship and Citizen Science. Tours will have some of our great volunteers as co-leaders and you can hear their viewpoints.
photo by Chares Larry

Since we are starting weed season here are a few posts from the past to consider:

Hand held herbicide sprayer
25 Drums, 1 Applicator, 1 Sprayer & 1 Winter
Invasive Reed canary grass control
Basal bark G4 on Echinacea purpurea
THE 1-2 PUNCH
Weed management tips
Wild Parsnip. Is it invasive or just a weed?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Piston pump vs centrifugal for prescribed fires: JD-9 nozzle, hose, characteristics

Posted on April 11, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

by Bill Kleiman

This post is for those who spray water on prescribed fires.

On our piston pump units we often use the above JD-9 Green Guard nozzle. We like it because it is easy to hold, especially while driving in a UTV. This nozzle is expensive at over $200. I first unscrew and remove a 3/4 to 1/2 inch reducer fitting that comes on the gun. I am touching that reducer. With the reducer removed the half inch hose fitting thread direct to the nozzle.

If you have one of these look at how it is attached to the hose. Here I am touching a swivel built into that hose fitting. When you buy hose ask for swivel fittings at both ends of the hose. They help with reeling up hose. At the nozzle end of the hose the swivel helps reduce how much you struggle with the hose.

In this case above the hose did not come with a swivel, but an even better swivel was added in the brass half inch fitting. It swivels easier but the fitting is expensive at over $30.

The Hypro D30 piston pumps we use produce a little under 3-4 gallons per minute at high pressures of 150-350 psi. We use the extra large tip on the right. You have to ask for this tip when purchasing the nozzle.

PISTON PUMPS VS CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS

The half inch hose and JD-9 nozzle are for piston pumps, or sometimes they are called piston/diaphragm pumps. These pumps produce low flow but high pressure. They are unique in that they only produce one flow rate no matter how big or long the hose is. With the Hypro D30 piston pump model a 300 foot hose produces 3-4 gpm of flow, the same as a 50 foot hose. The pressure at the nozzle is also the same on both hose lengths. The benefit of these pumps is you can use long light weight half-inch heat resistant hose which are great for un-reeling hose to get water where you want it.

The piston pumps are also stingy with water. This model only does 3-4 gallons per minute max. If you took the nozzle off entirely it would flow at 10 gpm at a very low pressure.

Compare this to a centrifugal pump. Centrifugal pumps can produce very high flows but the pressure is quite low with a 5 hp motor, say 30 to 70 psi. I won’t try to explain the physics of centrifugal pumps but the following points are important and often overlooked. With centrifugal a half inch diameter hose will produce a ton of friction to the water and diminish the flow and pressure that hose can carry. So these pumps tend to come with 3/4 inch or 1 inch hose diameters. This means your hose is heavy, and your reel likely fits a lot less length of hose than the piston pump units. If you do try a half inch hose with these centrifugal pumps keep it short on a separate line from the reel, often called a whip line.

The centrifugal pump is the standard in wildfire operations. A high flow is no problem if you are on a creek pumping water that does not run out. Or perhaps you are pumping from a very large fire truck tank where you can can pump 10 to 50 gallons per minute at modest pressure for a long time. On a UTV you will run out of water quick.

Prairie burners like the piston pumps for low flow, high pressure, and small droplet sizes. They do need freeze protection for overnight storage.

How to freeze protect a piston pump: Drain tank, spray empty, add maybe a gallon of pink antifreeze and pump the pink through the nozzle into the tank. If the night is not too far below freezing you can dilute the pink a bit. Some reuse the pink by spraying it into a jug. The pink stuff freezes at times but does not expand and break parts. An unheated shed can offer some freeze protection. The freezing overnight will occur in the hose reel, fittings, then the pump and last the tank.

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

Live Fire Trainings

Posted on April 4, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

We are resending this as there was a glitch in the first broadcast.

Mike Saxton is the Manager of Ecological Restoration and Land Stewardship at Shaw Nature Reserve – a division of the Missouri Botanical Garden – Gray Summit, MO.

Shaw Nature Reserve recently hosted 2 days of fire training put on by Quail Forever/Pheasants Forever for private landowners and partner staff from Missouri State Parks, the Missouri Department of Conservation and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. There were members from eight prescribed burn associations present and leadership support from the Missouri Prescribed Fire Council. More than 55 people participated in classroom lessons and live fire exercises. The primary focus of the sessions was preventing and suppressing spot fires. In live fire exercises, class participants worked together to extinguish spot fires in a low-diversity, fescue/broom sedge/Indian grass dominated field.

Missouri is 93% privately held, 3.5% federally held and 3.5% state/local municipality held. As fire is a necessary and beneficial tool to promote and enhance native biodiversity, it is critically important that private landowners have the knowledge, experience and support needed to safely put fire on the ground. All fire practitioners eventually get experience with an escaped fire…usually unplanned! This training allowed participants to experience it in a controlled setting with trained staff, prepped fire breaks and ample suppression on hand.

Hand tools and backpack water units were the primary means of suppression.

While there are private contractors who do good work to get fire on the landscape, there are too few of them out there. That is where PBAs are playing a critically important role. Landowners band together, support one another, share equipment, and provide crew to get more fire accomplished. The net result is creating a culture and community of fire and healthier habitats.

Participants instructed to attack from the black, attack from the back.

The type of hands-on, live fire trainings recently held at Shaw Nature Reserve are not readily available across the state or across the region. Class participants emphasized the value of the training and expressed a strong desire to see more of these available.

After action reviews allowed all participants to ask questions and give feedback.

Instructors demonstrated hand tool use. Participants had the opportunity to use a wide array of hand tools.

Instructors demonstrated wet-lining on closely mowed/blown fire breaks.

Perhaps the big winner of the day was fire broom. I had never used one before and was very happy with how effective it was at extinguishing backing/flanking fires in lower intensity fuels. Much more effective than a leaf rake in short statured grass.

In the minutes preceding this this video, instructors demonstrated how effective a leaf blower can be in suppressing backing fire in heavy grass fuels. Participants asked to see full-on spot fire suppression with just a leaf blower. As the video shows, a leaf blower can, in certain fuel/weather conditions, be effective at holding an escaped fire at bay. A blower might be able to even extinguish a small grass fire. In this mock scenario, a leaf blower bought time before sufficient resources could respond.

Consider hosting live fire trainings in your area. The need is there!

All images credited to Katy Hulsey – Missouri Habitat Partnership Specialist II with Pheasants Forever, Inc. and Quail Forever

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

Crafting Wetlands—2023 Crew Planting

Posted on March 28, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

Written by Jacob Churulo, Nachusa Grasslands Resident Fellow

Every year, Nachusa’s crew plantings embody our long-standing commitment to restoring high quality prairie habitat. In 2023, the combined seed picking efforts of the summer and fall restoration crews culminated into this 24-acre planting of mostly wet and mesic prairie. The planting site can be found just north of our Thelma Carpenter hiking trail on Carthage Rd. in what we call the Juanita and Homer Williams tract. This year’s planting—our 138th—filled in the final piece of a 350-acre block that now spans from Lowden to Carthage Rd.

Map of 2023 crew planting site, color-coded by seed mix location. The blank bottom right corner of the unit makes up the 2022 crew planting, comprised of the drier uplands of the site.

In the summer of 2023 leading up to the planting, an independent contractor was hired to prepare the site by constructing a series of dikes and scrapes which would hold water and encourage wetland conditions. We first decided that the area could host wetland habitat using the US Department of Agriculture’s web soil survey. This is a free online tool produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service that reports the soil types and conditions within a desired area of interest. When we performed this soil survey for the planting site, we found that over half of the unit was made up of La Hogue loam soil, which is characterized by poor drainage. This information indicated where it would be most appropriate to construct the wetland scrapes. After that, we could get to removing the drainage tiles and finally start constructing the dikes and scrapes. By the first large rain after construction was complete, the site hosted two small ephemeral ponds which were already being visited by Killdeer, Pectoral Sandpipers, and Sandhill cranes! In only a summer a wetland had been created before our eyes.

Two small ponds had formed after the first rain post dike construction. You can see three sandhill cranes in the right photo already visiting the ponds.

When the time came to compile all our seed collection data, we found that 2023 proved to be a productive year for seed diversity. Overall, we picked a total of 1,300 Lbs. from 247 species of plants, 19 of which had never been picked for Nachusa seed mixes before! This would not have been possible without the tremendous support from our partners, who allowed us to pick on their sites and gain access to species that do not grow at Nachusa (but hopefully they will now). Because of the wetland habitat being constructed in our planting site, the crew made an extra effort to collect seeds from wetland plants, like pickerel weed and arrowhead which tolerate and even prefer standing water. Picking these seeds made for an especially entertaining afternoon as the crew trudged through stinky wetland ponds, our muck boots utterly useless in the knee-high water. Of the 247 species picked, 68 were wetland species, many of which were also part of the 19 newly picked species.

Fall crew picking arrowhead and pickerel weed in ephemeral wetland pond. Pictured left to right: Jacob Churulo, Kelly Popper, James Johnston, Riley Berner, Molly Duncan.

The seed mixes were prepared over the course of two days, and the planting was finished in three days. Dressed in a dust mask and goggles with pitchfork in hand, we got to work mixing 100s of Lbs. of seed at a time to create five mixes: dry, dry mesic, mesic, wet, and wet emergent. We also utilized a 2020 mix specifically made for dikes, which was a collection of different combine mixes of mostly mesic-dry mesic seed that would support the dike soil from erosion.

Fall crew getting ready to make a seed mix. We would dump each species that went into the mix into a large pile and use pitchforks to turn and mix the seed.

We planted the seed using drop seeders pulled by pickups. The two trucks drive next to each other, staggered so we can maintain a small overlap and prevent gaps from forming. The trucks drive back and forth in one direction and then again perpendicular to that to ensure a full coverage. On the first day of the planting, we had a lovely blanket of snow over the planting site. While this may seem like a hindrance, the snow makes it incredibly easy to see where the seed is being dropped and evaluate the consistency of the drop seeders, as well as quickly spot and fill any gaps. We planted each mix at a time, and saved the wet emergent mix for hand seeding at the end because it was too mucky to drive the seeders through. On December 11, when the dikes were finally seeded, we officially completed our 138th planting at Nachusa Grasslands!

Trucks in staggered formation with drop seeders. The goal was to create a small overlap of the seeders when driving to prevent forming gaps in the planting.
The snow showed us exactly where the seed was being dropped. This helped tremendously to evaluate how we were driving and spot gaps.

Huge thank you to the crew members, staff, and numerous volunteers who helped us collect all the seed that went into this planting, and another thanks to the staff members and contractors who prepared the site to be planted. The habitat that has been created here is a testament to how important collaboration and teamwork is, especially in restoration, and Nachusa’s dedication to restoring high quality prairie habitat for all organisms to benefit from. A full planting report, as well as previous planting histories, can be found on the Friends of Nachusa Grasslands website at the link below. Crew Planting 138 Full Report:https://www.nachusagrasslands.org/uploads/5/8/4/6/58466593/138_plantingreport_2023_juanitawilliams.pdf

Summer crew, pictured left to right: Noah Reynolds, Amber Denker, Molly Duncan, Clara Barton, Jacob Churulo, Zach Skubiszewski.

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

Rx fire pumper units and tenders

Posted on March 14, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

by Bill Kleiman

As this is spring fire season in northern Illinois I thought I would highlight past posts I have done that show lessons learned about slip on pumper units and water tenders. 

Prescribed fire UTV slip on unit
A different pumper unit design
Pumper Units: How to build your own or purchase one
UTV tanks for prescribed fire
Tender Truck for Rx Fire
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Land Abandonment, Succession and Restoration: The Wolf Run Grasslands Restoration Project at the Missouri Botanical Garden’s Shaw Nature Reserve.

Posted on February 29, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

by Mike Saxton and Calvin Maginel

This article was originally posted in https://mbgecologicalrestoration.wordpress.com/2023/12/19/land-abandonment-succession-and-restoration-the-wolf-run-grassland-restoration-project-at-the-missouri-botanical-gardens-shaw-nature-reserve/

Since 1950, over 1-billon acres of agricultural land have been abandoned worldwide. In certain landscape contexts, passive recovery of high levels of native biodiversity in abandoned fields is possible while in others, like the Midwest USA, fallow fields rarely develop into biologically rich habitats. To achieve the ambitious goals of the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, land managers and ecologists need to better understand how to restore these highly altered landscapes.

In 1925, the Missouri Botanical Garden purchased 1,300 acres of battered farm ground in Gray Summit, MO – approximately 35 miles (56 km) west of St. Louis – to escape the deleterious impact urban air pollution was having on horticultural collections in St. Louis City. The intended use of this acreage was (1) to propagate and grow plants, trees and shrubs to be displayed at the main Garden and (2) to gradually establish an arboretum at the site. The site was officially named the Shaw Arboretum in 1933. After decades of development, many non-essential operations at the Arboretum were eliminated in 1958 and many fields were abandoned to undergo successional change. In 2000, the Shaw Arboretum was renamed Shaw Nature Reserve to reflect its contemporary mission to inspire responsible stewardship of our environment through education, restoration, and protection of natural habitats and public enjoyment of the natural world. Today the Nature Reserve consists of 2,400 acres of varied habitat. 

Prior to European settlement, the natural communities of the area were fire adapted, open oak-hickory woodlands and xeric glades with gallery forests along riparian corridors. Post-settlement, woodlands were clear-cut with some woodlots left to passively regenerate while others were converted to row crop agriculture.

Wolf Run Grassland Restoration

In 2016, Nature Reserve staff set an ambitious goal to bring all 2,400 acres of the site into active management to promote native biodiversity by the year 2030. This effort will include restoring open pastures and row crop fields, a relatively simple process. A much more challenging effort will be reclaiming 120 acres of old fields with 60+ year successional development, which is our current Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project.

The 120 acre project area was initially “wasted farm ground” that had erosion gullies “where a freight train could pass without you seeing it”, according to August Beilmann, former Arboretum Director from 1941 to 1956. The entire project area was sculpted and smoothed by a bulldozer in 1953 and then converted to bluegrass (Poa pratensis). “Every piece of this land that looks so likely to be just right was laboriously rebuilt,” said Beilmann in a 1974 interview.

Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project area in ca. 1945 showing open fields (light green) maintained through cattle grazing and mowing with trees occupying wet-weather streams and ditches (dark green).

Since 1958 when areas including the Wolf Run Grassland Restoration were removed from mowing and grazing, the site became dominated by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), border privet (Ligustrum obtusifolium), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria) and ash (Fraxinus) species which are in severe decline due to the emerald ash borer. These degraded woodlands had little native ground flora and were completely infested with non-native shrubs. Tree abundance and species composition had no historic analog. When setting ecological restoration goals for the area, staff determined that much of the site could not be managed as an open oak-hickory woodland, which would have existed at the site pre-settlement.  

Goals for the Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project

  • Establish a mosaic of 80 acres of prairie, 15 acres of savanna and 25 acres of oak-hickory woodlands
  • Maximize native flora diversity and aggressively manage against invasive species
  • Manage the area with prescribed fire

In 2021, Nature Reserve staff marked hundreds of native trees to retain including white, red, bur and black oaks (Quercus alba, Q. rubra, Q. macrocarpa, Q. velutina) and hickory including shagbark (Carya ovata) and bitternut (C. cordiformis). Drainages and wet weather streams were left with a 50ft untreated buffer while a perennial creek flowing through the unit retained a 150ft untouched buffer. A sustainable forester was contracted to remove unmarked trees from the area. Following US Fish and Wildlife Service recovery management guidelines for the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) — a federally endangered species — trees were only removed from November 1st to April 1st.

Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project area pre-thinning (2021), approximately 60 years after land abandonment. Note the dark green areas are dominated by eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), a native tree that rapidly colonizes abandoned or disturbed lands in the Midwest. Historically, this fire-sensitive tree species primarily occurred on rocky outcrops and bluffs that served as refugia from periodic fires that were common in the pre-European settlement landscape.

Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project area post-thinning (2023).
Forestry contractor equipment removed most woody biomass 4.5in in diameter and larger leaving behind mostly small-diameter slash. A bulldozer coalesced the debris into 600 piles that were subsequently burned.

The Restoration team has spent the last 9 months focusing on the removal of stumps for the project area. Stumps can be a substantial hazard for vehicles, equipment and staff safety. In order to plant the prairie seed and to effectively manage the area for invasive species in perpetuity, the stumps must be ground down or cut flush to the ground.

Skid loader mounted stump grinder removing stumps.

Concurrent to this effort has been the site preparation step of chemically treating all of the invasive species and the disturbance driven annual vegetation that emerged post-land clearing [primarily fireweed (Erechtites hieraciifolius), mare’s tail (Erigeron canadensis), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)and fox tail (Setaria pumila)]. This step is necessary because diverse, healthy native plant communities have not existed in these areas in more than 100 years. Consequently, there is no native seedbank to support the passive recovery of native perennial herbaceous species in these highly degraded acres.

In areas where stumps have not been cleared, traditional equipment (tractor boom sprayers and UTV mounted spray rigs) for applying herbicide are ineffective. The Nature Reserve hired a contractor that specialized in aerial herbicide application from a drone. The drone flies 12 feet above vegetation and can self-navigate around trees and other hazards. The unit carries a total of 8 gallons and sprays only 3 gallons of herbicide per acre. The effective width of each pass is 25ft. A single battery powers the drone, with a flight time of 7.5 minutes and a re-charge time of 6 minutes. When the herbicide tank runs out, the drone re-deploys to the fill up location, is refilled by the contractor, and then returns to where it left off.

Aerial drone sprayer used to eliminate undesirable vegetation.

The last step after the undesirable trees have been removed, biomass/debris has been burned, the stumps have been ground and invasive species have been controlled is the final ground preparation. Currently, in 2023, we are again smoothing out erosion gullies and clearing away the last remnants of woody debris with a bulldozer. This effort will ensure effective seed-to-soil contact when we sow native seed in January 2024 and will enhance our ability to successfully search for invasive species in the coming years by eliminating deep ruts and rills.  

Above: Bulldozer in 1953 eliminating erosion rills in Wolf Run Grassland Restoration project area. Below: Bulldozer completing site preparation for native seed addition.

Native Seeding and Experimentation to promote Biodiversity Recovery

During the growing season of 2023, the Restoration team at the Nature Reserve has been feverishly collecting seed for this 2024 seeding effort. More than 1,100lbs of bulk, milled seed from ~200 locally collected native tallgrass prairie and open oak-hickory woodland species will be used in the restoration planting. Additionally, these acres are enrolled in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP – part of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and we must purchase viability-tested seed to meet the minimum required specifications of the contract. The hand-collected seed together with the PLS seed purchased from commercial vendors will provide us with ample species and volume of seed to effectively cover the 40 acres to be planted this winter.

Concurrent with the preparation effort, we initiated a research study, which will help inform both us and the greater research community of the effectiveness of prairie plant recruitment amongst scraped soils that have been inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi and those that have not. This study includes paired species from the same genus that have different coefficients of conservatism, which represents a species’ tolerance of environmental degradation, or its fidelity to intact remnant or long-restored habitats, as determined by local botanical experts. Ecologists generally expect species that are dependent on stable intact communities (higher c-values) to be more reliant on mycorrhizae connections to establish and flourish. Species with high c-values tend to establish poorly in restorations, which is one of the reasons to pursue this study. Out of the 10 herbaceous species pairs, some examples include Carex bushii (c = 4) and Carex bicknellii (c = 10), Sporobolus compositus (c = 3) and Bouteloua curtipendula (c = 7), and Oligoneuron rigidum (c = 5) and Oligoneuron album (c = 9).

We added all 20 species at the same rate of pure live seeds to provide each species an equal opportunity to establish. Initial analyses after one growing season indicate that low c-value species germinated more successfully, producing more seedlings and greater percent cover than the high c-value species, regardless of inoculation. We expect the addition of mycorrhizal fungi to have the greatest effects on species during the first couple of years after germination. If the mycorrhizae associate with the roots of the high-c species more than the low-c species, this may help them grow faster or be more resistant to future stress. Future monitoring will show us if there are long-term effects of inoculation. To check for updates on restoration activities and results from experimental studies, please see visit our webpage.

Barrels of hand-collected seed connected to a seed dryer which pumps air though tubes into the barrels to eliminate mold & moisture.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Grass-Specific Herbicide Treatment on Heavily Grass-Dominated Prairies

Posted on February 15, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Alex Conley and Dr. Andrew Kaul, Missouri Botanical Garden’s Shaw Nature Reserve

Shaw Nature Reserve (SNR) is a division of the Missouri Botanical Garden, located 35 miles west of St. Louis and containing roughly 300 acres of restored tallgrass prairie as well as managed oak/hickory woodlands, glades, riparian corridors, and other habitats. While some prairie units are quite rich with moderate forb diversity and short-statured grasses like prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) and little blue stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), a majority of our prairies have less than desirable diversity and are dominated by warm-season grasses such as Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). In the early days of restoration at SNR, seed mixes were grass heavy with limited forbs included. And late-spring burning, a management practice that encourages warm-season grasses, was a common practice. This history is evident when looking out over our prairies today. During early summer, you can see a variety of flowering species. By the end of summer, when the grasses begin to bolt, you can only see a sea of tall grasses. Without grazers, restored prairies often become excessively dominated by warm-season grasses, consequently leading to decreases in wildflower diversity and abundance.

Hiking trail through tallgrass prairie at Shaw Nature Reserve in early September.

Grass Specific Herbicide Treatment

Three years ago, a volunteer steward set up two 20×20 ft plots to experiment with using a grass specific herbicide, Fusilade II, to suppress the grasses and—hopefully—increase forb diversity. For two years, we sprayed out the grasses during the growing season then sowed seed in winter between applications. In the summer, we monitored diversity and abundance inside and outside plots. The results from these observations were encouraging. While there were still some clumps of big bluestem and Indian grass, the existing forbs were noticeably more robust and abundant. Likely, suppressing the grasses for two growing seasons released existing forbs from competition. We will continue to monitor to assess whether seeded forbs establish in the future.  

Above: June 29, 2023 – Grass specific treatment area on right.

Above: September 27, 2023 – Untreated control on left

Above: Butterfly Milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa), Slender Mountain Mint (Pycnanthemum tenuifolium), White Wild Indigo (Baptisia alba) flowering in the grass specific treatment plot.

Larger Scale – Grass Specific Treatment

The restoration team at SNR decided to experiment with a larger ½ acre plot in an area that has little Sericea Lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), an invasive species we actively manage during the growing season. The plot was burned in late January 2023. We added seeds from 20 species not observed prior to the study’s beginning, including Golden Alexander (Zizia aurea), New England Aster (Symphyotrichum novae-algliae), Cream Gentian (Gentiana alba), and Pale Purple Coneflower (Echinacea pallida). Following the label for Fusilade II, we treated the area at the beginning of May and then a follow up treatment mid-June. In late June and September, we conducted basic presence/absence vegetation sampling inside and outside the plots.

In the first growing season post-treatment, there was little difference in species composition between the control and the treatment area. However, the species inside appeared to be more abundant and vigorous. We did find Nabulus asper – rough white lettuce in the treatment area and not in the control.

Our observations are encouraging as we look to better manage and diversify grass-dominated prairies. The next challenge will be to establish more forb species from seed, not simply releasing existing forbs.

Above: June 29, 2023 – treatment area on the right.

Above: September 27, 2023 – control area on the left.

Peer Reviewed Research – in progress

Dr. Andrew Kaul, a former postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Conservation and Sustainable Development at the Missouri Botanical Garden, has been leading a project studying how to diversify grass-dominated prairies at SNR over the past three years. He tested how three management interventions 1) herbicide application, 2) forb seed additions, and 3) mowing affect species diversity, forb abundance, and degree of invasion by nonnative species.

This study seeks to identify a management strategy to favor forb recruitment and growth that could be applied at large scales and does not open the prairie up to increased invasion from non-native species. Treatments included glyphosate, Fusillade II, or no herbicide to 2 plots of tallgrass prairie. Within each of these three herbicide treatments, ½ the plots received seed addition from 25 desirable prairie forbs and ½ the plots were mowed once during mid-growing season after the seed addition.

After two years of plot level sampling, the preliminary results indicate that using fusillade II (grass specific herbicide) in combination with seed additions increased forb abundance and diversity compared to controls, while also avoiding invasion.

Without seed additions, fusillade II slightly decreased the number of species present.

Plots treated with glyphosate did increase in their forb:grass ratio, but their composition was highly variable, very different from other treatments, and many became more invaded by non-native species.

June 2022 – before the mowing treatment, you can see the effects of both herbicide treatments on the vegetation. Left-Glyphosate (treatments completed August 2021). Right – Fusilade II (treatments complete May & June 2022).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Protecting oaks with fire and from fire

Posted on February 8, 2024 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Bill Kleiman

Oak species in our area thrive in landscapes with frequent fire. White oak, bur oak, black, Hills oak…. In full sun, bur oaks will grow like this one above with characteristic outspreading limbs. Fires bring sunlight. Oaks love sunlight.

Above, an oak that grew in the open is not crowded in with invasive brush and small trees. The ground layer is reduced to weeds. Oak reproduction stops in such conditions. Brush clearing followed by frequent low intensity fires can reverse this situation. 

But oaks can also be damaged a bit by fire when dead branches sit against the base of the tree. When those branches burn they can heat the thick bark of an oak and damage a portion of the cambium layer. The tree likely won’t die. The bark will heal over the fire scar. For sure, it is better to burn the landscape and accept some bark damage than not to burn. If an oak woods is not thinned, or burned the oaks will die out.

Above, is a tree “cookie” that I viewed last week at a fire ecology class in Arizona. We were visiting the University of Arizona Tree-Ring Lab which is the biggest such lab in the world. I forget what tree species it is. Each of those years there was a landscape fire that left a small fire scar that healed over with new bark, but the fire left its tell tale sign.  

We toured the lower level where thousands of tree cookies are stored for researchers to come and look at fire scars. Something like 250,000 tree cookies from around the nation have been carefully studied. The story they tell is a continent of landscape fire set by humans and lightening for thousands of years.

So fire scars are ok, but I really like this old oak. Let’s save it from that nasty scar. The branches in this tree are abundant. It takes a chainsaw and a few minutes to move those branches off the base of the tree. If you have just a handful of oaks perhaps you can justify this effort. I enjoy clearing them, having conversations with trees. ”Your welcome” I say with a pat.

In this restoration we found about two dozen small bur oaks growing on several acres where we brush mowed and sawed out cherries, mulberry and box elder. I used the leaf rake to clear around them. It took about 15 minutes. I am using a fire leaf rake from Forestry Suppliers. They work great and hold up to vigorous use. If I had not raked around this young tree the heavy thatch that had built up might have top killed the oak. The tree would re-sprout which is what an oak does, but then I would have to wait several years for it to reach this size again. Bur oaks have become uncommon enough to motivate my raking.

Susan K helped me clear some cherries from this area. We bucked them up for fire wood for next winter.

All those shrubs out there are bur oak, in this case planted as acorns in this prairie restoration by us a decade before. This prairie is frequently burned and the oaks simply re-sprout each time. They must have prodigious roots by now. At some point in the future we won’t burn for several years and a bunch of those oak shrubs will become small and then perhaps large majestic oaks. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 16 Comments

Northern Illinois Native Seed Phenophases

Posted on December 21, 2023 by Grassland Restoration Network blog

By Matt Hokanson

Have you ever discovered a population of rare native plants gorgeously in bloom and think to yourself “I must come back and collect seed from these plants to restore their population elsewhere”? Summer rolls on, life gets busy, and one fateful autumn day you suddenly remember the wonderfully healthy population of plants you were interested in collecting seed from. So, you gear up, head out into the field with marvelous vigor, but are soon sorely disappointed. You are too late, and the seed has fallen.

Has this ever happened to you? Have you ever wished there was a guide readily available that could help you understand when the seeds of native species are ripe? Now, there is. For northern Illinois at least. Welcome to the Northern Illinois Native Seed Phenophases Guide.

The native species listed in this guide are local to what is generally known as “Northern Illinois”, specifically, the counties of McHenry, Cook, DuPage, Lake, and Lee. The data was generously donated from volunteer groups, not-for-profit organizations, and municipal agencies. Some of the seed collection data sources utilized in this guide date back to 2005 and it is assumed seeds were collected during their prime ripening stage in any given year and are specifically local. It is also assumed seeds were collected from wild sources (i.e. not collected in a formal manicured garden setting). Yearly differences in climate/weather patterns, annual/monthly precipitation data, and average monthly temperatures were not taken into consideration.

Finally, major variances and anomalies were removed from any data that was used. Examples include seeds from species that were collected during the winter and prior to the next growing season (e.g., seed that ripened in September 2018 and was collected in February 2019). Native brome and rye grasses are not recommended to be collected after late October because their seeds often disarticulate from the glumes quite early during the seeding phase.

If you are interested in helping add data to this project, please submit individual observations to the respective Facebook group within your county. Organizations or groups that perform large-scale seed collection operations can submit their data at the end of the season. If this guide works out well, it could be a model for other natural areas conservationists throughout the country to use.

The more data collected the more refined this list will become. Phenological shifts, which are likely happening due to climate change, can be tracked over time as well.

Here is a link to our website that has the chart available for viewing and download. This is where I will keep the most up-to-date documents. woodstowetlands.com/seedcollectionchart/

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