Today we went to the surrounding areas of P1 and P8 —Experimental Plot number 1 and Experimental Plot number 8 respectively— to take care of the weeds found in those places (birdsfoot trefoil aka Lotus corniculatus, and sweet clover aka Melilotus officinalis).
We know that invasive plants have been expanding around the remnants of prairie and that these invasive plants represent a risk for native prairie plants (Echinacea angustifolia, porcupine grass, little bluestem, big bluestem) as they compete for the remaining space and resources, but after trying for some time we have not found a herbicide that eliminates those weeds without damaging native prairie plants, therefore we choose to manually get rid of these weeds. We spent the whole morning getting rid of the invasive plants and we did enjoy it and it made us very happy to make plants happy. 🙂
Grace with a jumping spider found in P8Kyra with the painted turtleFemale painted turtle found near P1Grace with the pile of bird’s foot trefoil by P1Aaron with the longest taproot of the bird’s foot trefoil we extracted (he did)Gael surprised by the amount of bird’s foot trefoil we got rid of
This week the team went out to experimental plot one with one clear goal, locate Hesperostipa Spartea, commonly referred to as Porcupine Grass. The team divided the plots and went off and searched–rows 42-49 were excluded from data collection. With an average time of 13 minutes per row and an extraordinary performance by Gael being the team member with the most data gathered with 17 rows. While the plants were not dry enough for seed collection, they were marked for a quick trip back to gather seeds.
Site observations by Grace K., Aaron, and Brittany
This site was a small prairie remnant on the upwards slope on a roadside ditch. The opposite of the road was a large field of predominantly bean crops, while the remnant side was only agriculturally disturbed far up over the slope. Our immediate impression of the site was a clear distinction between the downhill slope of the ditch by the road, and the remnant on the upwards side. Along the roadside and down the roadside slope of the ditch, there was a large community of forbs and non-native plants. This included large quantities of brome and cool season grasses, as well as clover, alfalfa, and roses. However, the prairie remnant contained mostly warm season grasses and echinacea seedlings, and there was significantly more exposed ground. This created a visual juxtaposition between thicker and greener vegetation on the left side, with slightly sparser vegetation with more ground and dead growth on the right. This dead growth led us to believe the site has not been burned this past season. Once the ditch flattened out at the top, the brome reestablished.
We hypothesized that the steep upwards slope of this section of the ditch made it untenable for plowing, and it was left undisturbed as the surrounding land was developed for agriculture. We also hypothesized that the increased disturbance immediately along the road may also benefit the growth of clover and forbs.
Site: Loeffler’s Corner West (LCW)
Site observations by Grace K., Aaron, and Brittany
This site is a remnant of the prairie, found on the corner of two roads. Both sides of the road were nonagricultural sites. There were signs of terraforming on the land. A clear distinction of plant life between the ditch and prairie remnant was clear. Much of the ditch on the road side was populated with tall brome grass, with some native grasses in the mix. The landscape of the site was steep and near a lake, making it unfit for cattle grazing and agricultural needs. The site was populated with many warm season grasses like porcupine and big blue. As well, was a significant amount of dried out plant life suggesting that there was not a control burn recently.
We hypothesized that due to the steep nature of the land and the wetland surroundings, it allowed for the land to be untouched by farmers and cattle alike. We also hypothesized that due to the artificial terraforming to build the nearby road, it allowed for non-native species of plant to populate the roadside of the ditch.
We visited the sites East Elk Lake Road and KJ’s . Both sites were small, bordering on either mowed private property or agricultural fields. We hypothesize that neither site has been burned recently, because there was remnants of old plant matter and the presence of fairly large trees and scrubs. For legumes, there was veiny peas, but no clover. For cold grass, there was brome and porcupine grass, and for warm, there was big blue grass. Otherwise, there were yellow asters and prairie roses.
KJ’s was extremely small, wedged between the road and the tree line, and was probably too small the ever consider planting. There was also a large animal den/hole and turkeys near the road at KJ’s. We also found an old flag at KJ’s, possibly demarking an old transect. In terms of legumes, we found clover, veiny pea, and alfalfa. For cold growing grass, there was lots of brome on the roadsides. However, there was not a lot of big blue grass for warm growing grass. There was also poison ivy, prairie roses, milkweed, and thistle.
EELR had many round bulbs on the plant matter, we hypothesize that these are wasp galls of some sort. EELR was much larger, with a higher diversity of plants, and likely was preserved because it was too steep to plow. Between the two sites, there was a fair number of trees, many of them pine, especially at KJ’s. There was evidence of significant animal activity, including a section of flattened grass where an animal, probably a deer, bedded down for the night, bordering on one of the segments at EELR.
Matted section of grass at the fourth segment of transect 131 at EELRFound flag at KJ’s along the eastern section, near the two tract roadTurkeys seen on the side of the road at KJ’sGall found on woody plant in many sections of EELR
Echinacea pallida is a species of Echinacea that is not native to Minnesota. It was mistakenly introduced to our study area during a restoration of Hegg Lake WMA around 2006 (Stuart’s recollection). This is concerning, because we don’t know how a similar species may impact or local Echinacea angustifolia! Will they hybridize? Could pallida outcompete angustifolia? Ever since pallida have started springing up, Team Echinacea has visited the pallida restoration, taken flowering phenology, and collected demography on the non-native plant. We have decapitated all flowering E. pallida each year to avoid cross-pollination with the local Echinacea angustifolia. Each year, we record the number of heads on each plant and the number of rosettes, collect precise GPS points for each individual, and cut off all the heads before they produce fruits.
This year, we cut E. pallida heads on June 26th. Overall, we found and shot 172 flowering E. pallida plants with 512 normal heads in total, averaging 2.98 heads per plant, though the max was 20 on a single plant! These non-native plants were hearty with an average rosette count of 7.20 rosettes and an astounding individual with a maximum of 88 rosettes. We did not take phenology data on E. pallida this year.
Team 2024 returns to their vehicles after flagging, taking demography data on, and decapitating Echinacea pallida at Hegg Lake WMA
Demography data: head counts, rosette counts, etc.
data in aiisummer2024 repo: ~/aiisummer2024/demo/demoGood2024.txt
Spatial location for every flowering E. pallida
data in aiisummer2024 repo: ~/aiisummer2024/surv/survGood2024.txt
Samples collected:
Echinaceapallida were not collected: decapitated heads were left on the ground next to the plants
A flowering echinacea at the aptly named nearby remnant “near pal” looked suspiciously like a hybrid (more robust than an angustifolia). We put a pollinator exclusion bag on the single head to prevent pollen spread, and later harvested the head and brought it back to the lab, where it is currently in the seed dryer. Keep an eye on tag 29239 in the future
Products:
None… yet! Besides a prairie with significantly less E. pallida reproduction
You can find more information about E. pallida flowering phenology and previous flog posts on the background page for the experiment.
Experimental plot 6 was the first E. angustifolia x E. pallida hybrid plot planted by Team Echinacea. A total of 66 Echinacea hybrids were originally planted. All individuals have E. angustifolia dams and E. pallida sires. In 2024, we visited 23 positions, 4 of which were can’t find year 3 in 2023 and didn’t get their final double check. We found living plants at all positions but those four (so, 19)! Last year, for the first time, 3 plants flowered in this plot. This year, no plants flowered.
Start year: 2011 (crossing) and 2012 (planting)
Location: Wagenius property
Overlaps with:
Common garden experiment
Data collected:
Measure data (status, size, etc.)
data in SQL database
Samples collected:
None (no flowering plants)
Products:
None… yet!
You can find more information about experimental plot 6 and previous flog posts about it on the background page for the experiment.
Experimental plot 7 is the second E. pallida x E. angustifolia plot. It contains conspecific crosses of each species as well as reciprocal hybrids, totaling 294 pdeigreed individuals. We took phenology records between July 10th and July 18th. There were 42 flowering plants this year; from these we harvested 87 heads. Heads in this plot were covered by pollinator exclusion bags during the growing season to prevent cross-pollination with nearby Echinacea populations.
Stuart demonstrates proper measuring technique in exPt07
Start year: 2012 (crossing) and 2013 (planting)
Location: Hegg Lake WMA (MN DNR)
Overlaps with:
Common garden experiment
Data collected:
Phenology data (dates of flowering stages)
data in cgData repo: ~/cgData/summer2024/exPt79Phenology
Measure data (status, size, etc.)
data in SQL database
Harvest data (IDs of harvested heads, missing achenes, etc)
detailed data in dropbox: dropbox/CGData/140_reconcile/reconcile2024/reconcileOut/2024harvestListReconciledExport.csv
data in echinaceaLab package (hh.2024)
Samples collected:
87 heads harvested
at CBG for processing
Products:
None… yet!
You can find more information about experimental plot 7 and previous flog posts about it on the background page for the experiment.
There were originally 745 seedlings planted in exPt09. Experimental plot 9 is a hybrid plot, but, unlike the other two hybrid plots, we do not have a perfect pedigree of the plants. That is because the E. angustifolia and E. pallida maternal plants used to generate seedlings for exPt09 were open-pollinated. At this point, some but not all plants in this plot were tested for paternity, revealing that there are some hybrids. This year, we took phenology records between July 9th and July 18th. During measuring, we searched at 292 positions and found evidence of 234 living plants in 2024. Of these individuals, 70 were flowering. We harvested 110 heads from this plot! Heads in this plot were covered by pollinator exclusion bags during the growing season to prevent cross-pollination with nearby Echinacea populations.
The team runs out reel tapes to aid in measuring exPt09
Start year: 2014
Location: Hegg Lake WMA (MN DNR)
Overlaps with:
Common garden experiment
Data collected:
Phenology data (dates of flowering stages)
data in cgData repo: ~/cgData/summer2024/exPt79Phenology
Measure data (status, size, etc.)
data in SQL database
Harvest data (IDs of harvested heads, missing achenes, etc)
detailed data in dropbox: dropbox/CGData/140_reconcile/reconcile2024/reconcileOut/2024harvestListReconciledExport.csv
data in echinaceaLab package (hh.2024)
Samples collected:
110 heads harvested
at CBG for processing
Products:
None… yet!
You can find out more information about experimental plot 9 and flog posts mentioning the experiment on the background page for the experiment.
It has been a packed few days here in Phoenix, and I’d like to describe some of the presentations I saw at yesterday’s ground nesting bee symposium. There was a broad range of topics, including the microbe communities found on pollen balls, brood parasite and host interactions, rare desert bees, and more! Nick Dorian had great results to share from his mark-recapture work in New Jersey, which was great to see after he demonstrated that method to Team Echinacea over the summer. Lily Fulton’s presentation really stood out to me: She is also studying prescribed fire, at a long term experimental fire site in Florida longleaf pine flatwoods. they found higher bee and wasp abundances during burn years, as well as higher proportions of bare ground. This is strikingly similar to our research findings! It was great to chat with her about it over my own poster.
Title slide of Lily Fulton’s presentation. My poster! It is showing the first year of data from the ENRTF project, since we haven’t sent our 2024 bees to Zach yet.
It’s been incredible getting to meet so many researchers who care about native bees. Many stopped by to have a look at the poster! I’ve cited many of them in my previous work, so running into them in person is almost like meeting a celebrity. One consistent interest I’ve gotten from attendees is to look a the community composition of bees in the different treatment groups. Perhaps the increased abundance in the year of a burn we’re seeing is because of a cohort of burn-loving ground nesters, who don’t stick around in following years. It’ll be exciting to look into!
Shot of the poster sessions. There were a ton of applications, so space was pretty limited.
Overall, this has been a fantastic experience and opportunity to expand my network. I got to reconnect with some old friends, and make plenty of new ones. I can’t wait to get back to work on my thesis, now that I know who might be viewing it once it’s published! Expect more on that in the next few months.
Hailey hand pollinated flowers on six silver-leaf scurf pea plants (Pediomelum argophyllum). We are harvesting the plants as the pods ripen. Wyatt harvested two plants on 30 Aug, I harvested two today (9 Sept). Two remain–each is attached to a pin flag so it doesn’t tumble way. But don’t seem like that will happen soon.
Yesterday I squeezed every pod from the plant that Wyatt harvested S of 23518-L. They all felt the same (empty), including the treatment pods that have yellow & blue twist-ties. Many of the pods had fallen off the stem, but not the bagged one. This time I gently put the entire plant into a large paper grocery bag to keep the pods on the stems. I regret i didn’t take any photos of the plants.
Stay tuned to learn about effects of hand pollination on seed set in the silver leaf scurf pea!
In past years team echinacea has noticed that silverleaf scurfpea very rarely produces a seed. Some would estimate over ninety percent of the time the pod contains no seed. This brings about many questions concerning why sliverleaf scurfpea produces so few seeds. The focus of this experiment is to get an idea of whether or not the problems related to going to seed are pollination related?
The first step of the experiment was to was to look at the sliverleaf scurfpea’s flowers under a microscope to see if the flowers were producing pollen and see if it was possible to cross pollinate such a small flower in the field. The flowers of the sliverleaf scurfpea were producing pollen and with some experimentation I found a way to effectively cross pollinate the flowers. I found that the best way to get the pollen out out of the flowers was to use a dark colored toothpick and gently open the petals of the flower so that the anthers are more visible. following that I would lightly brush the anthers with the toothpick so that it would collect the pollen. I would then gently open the petals of the other flower and bush the toothpick over the stigma.
The second phase of the experiment included going out into the field and cross pollinating the silverleaf scurfpea. This took place at the site Nice Island on July 24th and July 31st of 2024. The plants were chosen at random and each plant was over 20 meters away from the plant it was being crossed with. On each plant two flowers were randomly chosen. One as the flower that would be crossed, identified by a blue twist tie, and the other as a control variable, identified by a yellow twist tie. Following the cross pollination both twist tied flowers were covered in a pollinator exclusion bag. This was repeated for 6 different silverleaf scurfpea plants at Nice Island. Each plant involved in the silverleaf scurfpea experiment was marked using a green flag.
This work sets the team up for the final step of the experiment. The final step will be to return to the cross pollinated plants in about 2-3 weeks and see if the pods that were pollinated produced a seed. This can be done by squeezing the pods. The pod will either contain a seed or not contain a seed.
Silverleaf Scurfpea in Cross Pollination Experiment
Silverleaf Scurfpea in Cross Pollination ExperimentSilverleaf Scurfpea Cross Pollination Experiment at Nice Island
Today was the first day of total demography! Team Echinacea started as a whole group at Tower, a remnant prairie site, where Jared gave an overview of total demography. Team Echinacea learned important skills such as communication and collaboration. After total demography was finished at Tower, one group headed to Martinson Approach and another went to East of Town Hall. Echinacea angustifolia pollen has seemed to wind down in the past few days. Today, Grace and Rebecca collected the remaining pollen from the last flowering plants. In the afternoon, everyone had personal project time!
