Yesterday Team Echinacea took the afternoon to do some transplanting in P8. We planted 4 different species: Dichanthelium leibergii, Solidago missouriensis, Bromus kalmii, and Carex bicknellii. All of these species we want to establish in P8 because seed collection is very difficult and by starting plants from plugs we hope to establish enough plants to be able to successfully collect seeds to distribute in other areas of the experimental plot. These species are of interest to prairie restorationist and could serve a basis for future projects by members of the Echinacea Project. Solidago missouriensis are a colonel species but flower infrequently making them hard to collect seed from. In the past we have had another member of team Echinacea research Dichanthelium leibergii and could be used as a great focal species to conduct a future study on pollination biology.
The transplanting yesterday also served as good experience for folks to come together and design a plot together, get experience flagging out a new plot, as well as give them good experience with planting different types of plugs in different settings. Everyone did a great job in working together and delegating tasks and got 120 plants planted in only ~90 minutes!
Planting List:
Species
# of plugs planted
Dichanthelium leibergii
40
Solidago missouriensis
20
Bromus kalmii
30
Carex bicknellii
30
Bonus Update: The robin babies are growing up and getting big enough to watch while at lunch. Soon enough they’ll be off on their own!
I am an graduate student at Northwestern University / Chicago Botanic Garden, pursuing a M.S. in Plant Biology and Conservation, and have worked as a research assistant and a lab manager for Team Echinacea. My thesis research will focus on Asteraceae species presence and richness in remnant and restored prairies in western Minnesota.
Pronouns: She/They
Research Interests
I am very much interested in restoration ecology and land management. Prairies have always had a special place in my heart and were one of the first ecosystems I truly fell in love with. I hope to create practical and functional conservation plans for protecting our prairies, the most endangered ecosystem in the world, in the future.
Statement
I grew up in southeast Iowa, but have been living in Illinois for the past 3 years. When I’m not working I love to be paddle boarding, hammocking, cooking, reading, or snuggling my 6-year-old tuxedo cat named Mo.
My cat Mo!Me at the Orchid Show at Chicago Botanic Garden
Team Echinacea has successfully completed some spring prescribed burns! Our mighty team of seven (Stuart, Gretel, Jared, Wyatt, Fannie, Brad, and I) took to Minnesota this past week to conduct a handful of spring prescribed burns. We set off bright and early on Sunday morning at around 9am to make the 9 hour drive from Chicago Botanic Garden to our study sites in Minnesota. Weather in Minnesota on Monday and Tuesday allowed us to get multiple different sites done including the coveted P1 and P8 experimental plots. The sun was shining, the sky was clear, humidity was low, the wind was blowing just enough, and the grass was very dry making it a perfect day. The days were long and the temperatures were high (in the 80’s), but we polished off both days with some great food and great conversations which are essential to any good burn trip to keep up morale.
Experimental plot p1 during the burn (left) and after the burn (right)
Fannie using the drip torch for the first time (left) and Jared lecturing Blue on the importance of fire safety (right)
Not only did we get some good burns in, but we were able to visit Runestone County Park on Tuesday morning. We used this trip to see the current restoration work being done at the park, and it allowed us to find spots for potential signs discussing different topics such as why prescribed fire matters, the history of prairies, and more. We also used our time in MN to get many pictures and videos to be used for dissemination projects discussing why prescribed fire is important for native pollinators.
Of course it wouldn’t be a complete trip to Minnesota without a stop at Staffanson Prairie Preserve.
This is part of our project “How Do Prescribed Fires Affect Native Prairie Bees?”
Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
We’re interested in investigating what resources are available to Echinacea visitors and learning more about the pollen and nectar Echinacea produces. We hope to learn if the nutritional resources available differ before and after burns. In 2022, Britney House developed methods for collecting nectar from Echinacea using microcapillary tubes. Read more about her methods here.
During the summer of 2024, the team collected pollen and nectar samples from Echinacea angustifolia at 12 sites in and around Solem Township, MN. We searched for and shot the ~10 plants (or, if few were available, as many as we could find) at each site that were closest to a random point. We then bagged up to five of the heads with pollinator exclusion bags for those 10 plants. Throughout the duration of their flowering, we collected pollen from all bagged plants and nectar from five of them per site.
We removed bags from pollen/nectar plants and backup plants when they were done flowering, and we collected until a a limit was set of a cumulative 10mm of nectar from each plant. This year we also collected immature florets from each bagged head at the start of sampling.
Following some experimentation, we conducted nectar collection only in the afternoons, while pollen collection could be done any time of day. In total, we collected vials of pollen, nectar, and vials containing immature florets from 60 plants. Pollen and nectar tubes were given to Rahul Roy at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, who will be doing pollen and nectar analysis. Tubes containing immature florets were sent with Grace Hirzel at North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND for pollen grain count and size analysis.
Data entry for collection datasheets is ongoing. Pollen data entry is started and nectar data is a little over half done with the help of Emma Reineke. Emma will also be using part of this dataset for her senior thesis project at the University of Minnesota.
Scans can be found at: Dropbox/teamEchinacea2024/z.pollenNectarDataEntry/scans.
Start year: 2024
Location: Various prairie remnants around Solem Township, MN
Team members involved with this project: Summer team 2024, Rahul Roy (St. Kate’s), Emma Reineke (University of Minnesota), Jarrad Pasifrika and Grace Hirzel (North Dakota State University)
Products: pending
Funding: ENRTF
Grace Hirzel taking off a pollen excluder bag on an Echinacea angustifolia plant.
Exciting things are happening with Coreopsis pollen and nectar! Data entry for nectar has been accomplished and a figure has been made! The primary goal of this project is to see if prescribed burns have an affect on pollen and nectar quantity in C. palmata. However first and foremost, I want to go into more detail of how I collected data this summer, and then I’ll talk about my new nectar figure and what our findings are currently looking like.
Field Methods Step by Step: Pre-Collection:
In order to collect pollen and nectar samples we first need to identify the plants we are sampling from.
Random bb-points are pre-selected to designate areas of study interest within each site. Identify the closest “patch”, which is a central location with 5 or more stems of coreopsis, relevant to the bb-point. Record the location of each patch using Avenza. (2024 Avenza layer can be found in “Dropbox / teamEchinacea2024 / maddieSadler / coreopsisPalmata”)
Place a flag in the relative center of the patch and label it with it’s patch ID number.
Select 5 plants that are still completely immature and place a pollen excluder bag over the head of the plant.
Monitor plants for a few days until they reach day two or three of anthesis where anthers are protruding and there are still immature florets in the center of the head. This is important later for pollen collection.
Pollen Collection:
Select the plant to sample from bagged plants located in each patch. We chose 3 of the 5 bagged plants based on day of anthesis and general look of the head.
Record the bb-point of the coreopsis patch, site name, and location on the data sheet.
Remove the pollinator exclusion bag from the selected head.
For pollen collection we will be collecting 3 immature florets from the head of the flower.
Label your microfuge tube with the plant ID number located on the data sheet.
Take the tweezers and carefully extract three immature florets, one by one, from the flower head and place them into the microfuge tube. Make sure to be careful that you do not rip the floret in half or puncture it with the tweezers.
Once all three florets are placed inside the tube, close it. Place the tube into the cooler with ice packs for further sorting upon your return from the field.
Repeat steps 1-8 for next plant.
Upon returning to the Hjelm House, place the collected pollen tubes in the collected samples box, which then is stored in the freezer.
Nectar Collection: This was adapted from the 2022 nectar protocol for Echinacea which can be found here.
After pollen collection you will begin the process of nectar collection.
On the same heads used from pollen collection, select the anthers that are the most recently presented to sample from.
Insert the microcap tube into the anther floret. Insert the microcap down into the floret until there is light resistance when you reach the base of the floret.
Twist or rotate the microcap five times.
Carefully remove the microcap.
Repeat steps 3-4 on all presented anther florets on the selected flower head.
Record the amount of nectar collected in the microcap in millimeters (mm). It is helpful to hold the microcap up to the sun to see the refraction of light from the nectar to see the amount collected. You can use a magnifying glass if needed to read the amount of nectar in mm on the ruler.
Place the entire microcap with the collected nectar sample into a microfuge tube to be disposed of properly outside of the field.
Once this task is completed, it will not need to be done for the same plant in the future.
Repeat steps 2-8 for the next plant in the patch.
After all plants in patch are sampled from remove any extra pollinator bags and remove the flag from the center of the patch. Collection will not be repeated on the patch.
Field Supply Checklist:
Pollen Supplies:
Microfuge tubes (tall enough to put the immature floret inside and close the cap)
Permanent marker
Pen
Extra pollinator exclusion bags
Flag bag with flags of the designated color
Magnifying glass glasses with 3.5 – 5 X magnification
Tweezers
Water and sunscreen
Clipboard with the data sheet
Field collection box to hold small supplies
Small cooler with ice packs
Nectar Supplies:
Microfuge tubes (tall enough to put the microcap inside and close the cap)
Magnifying glass glasses with 3.5 – 5 X magnification
Ruler with mm markings
Water and sunscreen
Clipboard with the data sheet
Field collection box to hold small supplies
Now for the fun stuff!
Over this past week I’ve worked on creating this graph seen down below. This graph looks at the total amount of nectar in millimeters in each tube from each plant in our burned and unburned site combinations. These site combinations were created based on proximity to each other and burn history. For example, TorgN was burned, but TorgS, directly across from it, was not; Tower was burned, but Nice, directly across from it, was not. For YOHW and YOHE, we ran into an issue in that YOHE, the unburned side, had no flowering C. palmata in it; thus, we only have data from YOHW.
As we can see there is large amount of variation in totals across all the sites. When looking at the mean values (the red and blue squares on the graph) we are finding the slightest bit of evidence that burned sites are showing higher levels of nectar. Meaning my original hypothesis, that we’d see strong evidence that there is difference in quantity in burned sites rather than unburned sites is out the window! However, we can’t fully accept the null hypothesis, that there is strong evidence of no difference in nectar quantity, since there is not enough supporting evidence. Having this knowledge now, it will be interesting to see if there is a similar pattern in our pollen counts. Data and analysis on that to come!
Fig: Total (mm) of nectar in tubes for each plant at each site. Red squares (burned) and Blue squares (unburned) show average total with standard error.
**The code for this graph can be found in: “Dropbox / teamEchinacea2024 / maddieSadler / coreopsisPalmata”.**
NOTE: Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
Currently, I’m writing this from my new apartment in Chicago! Classes start next week for me, and I’m moving on to the data management portion of my summer project. This summer, I looked at pollen and nectar quantity in Coreopsis palmata (prairie coreopsis) in burned vs. unburned sites. But why does this matter? Pollinators depend on pollen and nectar from flowers to supply the nutrients they need to survive. However, there has yet to be a strong comparison between common Asteraceae plants identifying the quantity and quality of plants that can be shared with land managers to help create more viable resources for pollinators in their prairie restoration efforts. Therefore, I wanted to conduct a study looking at pollen and nectar quantity in common non-Echinacea prairie plants to examine how prescribed fire affects plant resources for pollinators.
The sites I collected data from included Torgeson North and South, Tower and Nice Island, and Yellow Orchid Hill West. Pollen data was collected by selecting three immature florets from three flower heads in a “patch,” defined as five or more stems in one central location. These immature florets will then go through a lab process where they are sliced open and placed into an agar solution, allowing the pollen to float to the top, where it can be counted. Nectar collection was done using microcapillary tubes, where we measured the amount of nectar in each tube in millimeters. The volume of nectar can then be calculated based on the size of the microcapillary tube in relation to the measurement in millimeters obtained from the tube. In total, I had around 75 pollen and nectar measurements. I also collected transect density data for each “patch” that we sampled and mapped them in Avenza for future reference. This allows me to identify and see how dense the populations are within a certain site, and to determine if there is a difference between burned vs. unburned areas.
I was not able to study more than one species this summer, but we shall see what the next summer holds!
NOTE: Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
Big project update! For my summer project I am looking at nectar and pollen volumes in other Asteraceae plants that are non – Echinacea in burned sites versus unburned sites. This is important because pollinators depend on pollen and nectar to get the nutrients they need. A large decrease in pollinators has been found due to prairie fragmentation, and studying whether fire can help in producing a higher quantity of pollen and nectar can be shared with land managers to help create more viable resources for pollinators in their prairie restoration efforts. My two species of focus for now are Coreopsis palmata (also known as prairie coreopsis) and Helianthus pauciflorus (also known as stiff sunflower). Mid-summer coreopsis blooming is starting to come to close and so are my nectar and pollen measurements! Onto sunflowers here in the next couple weeks!
Time for daily update: Total demo continues! One group of 4 and one group of 3 went out to a total of 4 different sites. These included south of golf course, north of golf course, and yellow orchid hill east and west. A few people also finished up or pollen and nectar collection on Echinacea heads.
This afternoon a group went out and did e-trap collection and retrieval. We have been working on rotation 5 this week after finally polishing off rotation 4 late last week! The rest of us went and did measurements of Echinacea in one of our experimental plots (P9). Measurements included: flowering rosette count, basal rosette count, total basal leaves, height of tallest basal leaf, height of tallest cauline leaf (aka leaf on stem without a petiole), and height of head to name a few. Our plant of the day was finding a diseased Echinacea with over 360 basal leaves. To finish off the day we moved the goats to a new paddock and enjoyed some cold watermelon in the late week heat.
Nothing beats cold watermelon after a hot day of field work!Incentive to get the goats to their new paddock.
This week was a busy Monday for team Echinacea. Jennifer from College of Wooster joins us this week along with her research assistants Max and Indigo! This morning started off with round 2 of sweet clover pulling, and was promptly followed by a crash course in pollinator observations. We tried our hand in collecting species in small tubes for ID and then release. A big part of this was learning how to differentiate between flys and bees as some flies can look realllyyy close to a bee. But don’t be fooled! To round out the morning we went out in groups to collect pollen for our pollen and nectar study specifically looking at echinacea angustifolia.
After lunch, half of us went and deployed another round of emergence traps while the other half went out and did nectar collection for the pollen and nectar study.
Maddie with round 2 of our sweet clover pulling bounty.
Jennifer prepping us for our crash course in pollinator observations.
Zach holding a micro-capillary tube with a whopping 7mm of nectar!
Today was a full day for team Echinacea! Not only is it Elise’s first day on the team, but it’s also summer solstice. This morning Brittany and I went out to Staffanson Prairie Preserve West to finish shooting bb-points. While another team started flagging/planting P8 for a new experiment. The new common garden experiment being added to P8 involves planting prairie turnip to learn how to grow and measure the species while establishing a basis for future studies.
This afternoon was busy finishing up planting in P8 while a handful of others went out and set the first emergence traps for the season! Woot woot!
Many more updates to come, along with daily posts from other members of the team.
Hailey (left) and Maddie (right) flagging in P8.
Wyatt (left) and Elise (right) standing with some prairie turnip plugs.
Brittany (left) and Emma (right) planting some turnips in P8.
For our first day we did direct observations with the goal of practicing your observational skills along with plant ID for our four plant groups of focus: C3 grasses, C4 grasses, legumes, and forbs. The group I was placed in looked at sites ALF East and ALF West.
ALF West was our first stop. This site featured a fence line and natural hills that has been cut through by a gravel road. The site consisted mainly of C3 grasses. In the ditch and closer to the road we were able to see a handful of different legume and forb species, but the site lacked diversity in general. Due to this lack of diversity and over taking of C3 grasses the site appears to have not had a prescribed fire for a few years. Fortunately, we were able to see some emerging coneflower which is always exciting!
ALF East was very different in diversity in comparison to ALF West. Based on visual observations diversity was a lot higher and most of the plant species found belonged in the legume and forb plant groups. With diversity being so much higher, and the plot featuring several plants that have appeared to have been scorched by fire it was our assumption that ALF West had experienced prescribed fire in recent years. The landscape of ALF West not too visually different other than it featuring a corn field behind the prairie area unlike on ALF East.
