We have a patch of an invasive weed in our main experimental plot. We have been trying to keep this non-native hawkweed from spreading for several years. This year we did a really good job. First, we found all the satellite patches and used the opportunity to practice reading and making maps. Then we pulled all the flowers stems–we estimated 369 stems. Here’s a map of all hawkweed patches and the main infestations is the 10m x 10m square.
Then we pulled all the stems in the square of infestation, counting as we pulled. Here are the counts & the total in the square:
After we counted and pulled, we each made an independent estimate of the number of flowering stems we missed. We could have missed stems that were trampled or difficult to see with the current light conditions. Here are our counts with the mean and median:
Stuart went back when it was cloudy and found 47 stems in the infestation square, mostly trampled. The next day he systematically walked the square and found 4 more. So that’s 51 missed. One person had a pretty close estimate (48). All but one of our estimates were optimistic about our thoroughness.
round(c(37,51)/(1265+51), 3) [1] 0.028 0.039
We estimated a miss rate of 3% and our actual rate was closer to 4%. We practiced estimating, pulled a lot of stems, ~1700, and have maps to go back and get the plants later this season. Good work, team!
Every year since 1996, Team Echinacea members record flowering phenology, taking measuring data and harvest heads of thousands of Echinacea angustifolia plants in common garden experiments. These experimental plots are prairie restorations and abandoned agriculture fields that are managed as grassland habitat. Some plots have multiple ongoing experiments within. Currently, the Echinacea Project currently has 10 established experimental plots.
This project status report will contain updates on experimental plots experimental plots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8. Reports for the remaining experimental plots can be found on separate posts including Amy Dykstra’s plot (exPt03), the hybrid plots (exPt06, exPt07, exPt09), and the West Central Area common garden (exPt10).
Jo, Emma, Kennedy and Sophia measuring in the picturesque views of exPt02.
exPt01: Experimental plot 1 was first planted in 1996 (cleverly termed the 1996 cohort), and has been planted with nine other experiments in subsequent years, with the most recent planting being Amy Waananen’s inter-remnant crosses. It is the largest of the experimental plots, with over 10,000 planted positions; experiments in the plot include testing fitness differences between remnants (1996, 1997, 1999), quantifying effects of inbreeding (inb1, inb2), and assessing quantitative genetic variation (qgen1). There are also a number of smaller experiments in it, including fitness of Hesperostipa spartea, aphid addition and exclusion, and pollen addition and exclusion (the latter two experiments were continued the summer of 2022 and will have separate update posts). In 2022, we visited 7,273 of the original 10,673 positions planted and found 2,985 alive. Only 1,111 plants were classified as “flowering” in exPt01 this year. This is a drastic increase from the mere 79 plants that flowered in summer 2021– coincidentally, the plot was burned in the spring prior to summer 2022 and not prior to summer 2021. In summer 2022, we harvested 1,588 total Echinacea heads in exPt01. No additional staples were added to the experimental plot this year.
Some numbers for experiments within exPt01
Inb1: The INB1 experiment investigates the relationship between inbreeding level and fitness in Echinacea angustifolia. Each plant in experiment INB1 originates from one of three cross types, depending on the relatedness of the parents: between maternal half siblings; between plants from the same remnant, but not sharing a maternal or paternal parent; and between individuals from different remnants. All individuals were planted in 2001.We continued to measure fitness and flowering phenology in these plants. In 2022, of the original 557 plants in INB1, 92were still alive. Of the plants that were alive this year, 40 of them were flowering; this is a drastic difference from summer of 2021 where only one of the plants was flowering.
qgen: The qGen1 (quantitative genetics) experiment in p1 was designed to quantify the heritability of traits in Echinacea angustifolia. We are especially interested in Darwinian fitness. Could fitness be heritable? During the summer of 2002 we crossed plants from the 1996 & 1997 cohorts of exPt01. We harvested heads, dissected achenes, and germinated seeds over the winter. In the spring of 2003 we planted the resulting 4468 seedlings (this great number gave rise to this experiment’s nickname “big batch”). 1,467 plants in qGen1 were alive in 2022. Of those plants, 592 flowered this summer.
Other plots:
exPt02: To examine the role flowering phenology plays in the reproduction of Echinacea angustifolia, Jennifer Ison planted this plot in 2006 with 3,961 individuals selected for extreme (early or late) flowering timing, or phenology. Using this phenological data, we explore how flowering phenology influences reproductive fitness and estimate the heritability of flowering time in E. angustifolia. In the summer of 2022, we visited 1,856 positions of the 3,961 positions originally planted. We measured 1,438 living plants, of which 651 were flowering, with a total of 1,168 flowering heads. In the fall, we harvested 558 heads from exPt02. We began harvesting on August 10th and completed harvesting on September 12th. The large difference between the number of heads and the number harvested has to do with high levels of seed predation, mainly by ground squirrels. This year, Will, Jennifer, and other members of Team Echinacea published a paper in the American Journal of Botany using data from exPt02 – check it out here! Location: Hegg Lake WMA
exPt04: Experimental plot 4 was planted to gauge whether Echinacea from small remnant populations could be genetically rescued via an outcross to larger, more genetically diverse populations. Caroline Ridley and other members planted this plot in 2008. We did not visit exPt04 this year. Location: Hegg Lake WMA
exPt05: The only experimental plot planted at Staffanson Prairie Preserve (SPP), exPt05, was planted to compare progeny of maternal plants from burned and unburned sections of SPP. There were 2800 plants planted originally, but high mortality made it impractical to visit the plot row-by-row. Now, we and treat the plot like demography. We use our survey-grade GPS to find plants in exPt05 that have previously flowered and add more plants to the stake file if new plants in the plot flower. In 2022 we found 11 living plants, four of which were flowering! There were two heads that should’ve been harvested, but Alex and I forgot to harvest them (oops). Location: Staffanson Prairie Preserve
exPt08: Team Echinacea established quantitative genetics experiments to quantify additive genetic variance of fitness in Echinacea, with the idea that we can estimate evolutionary potential of study populations. The maternal parents of qGen2 and qGen3 are plants in the 1996, 1997, and 1999 cohorts. These plants were crossed with pollen from plants in remnants to produce seed for qGen2 and qGen3, which now inhabit exPt08. Originally, 12,813 seeds were sown in the common garden. Seeds from the same cross (shared maternal and paternal plants) were sown in meter-long segments between nails. A total of 3,253 seedlings were originally found, but only 363 plants were found alive in 2022. There were 14 flowering plants in 2022, and 15 heads. On a side note, 3 additional flowering plants were found in t-plot, but the heads were eaten before we could harvest any of them. Location: Wagenius property
Start year: Differs between experiment, see above. First ever experimental plot was in 1996.
Location: Differs between experiment, see above.
Overlaps with: …everything!
Data collected: Raw measuring data can be found in cgData repository. Processed data will be eventually uploaded to SQL database. Currently, SQL database has measuring data up until 2021.
Samples or specimens collected: See above for total harvested heads in each plot.
Products: Many publications and independent projects.
Attached is a csv containing the coordinates for parasitic plantings in exPt01. ID is a unique ID to a Row x Position combination, Row is the row in exPt01 (starts at row 13 and increases by 5), Position is the position in exPt01 (starts at 861.85 and increases by 5), Treatment is what was placed there (seeds, Comandra, Pedicularis, or C + P which is Comandra and Pedicularis), siteOne is where the first plant planted came from and siteTwo is where Pedicularis came from if Comandra and Pedicularis were both planted.
Since 1996, members of Team Echinacea have walked, crawled, and ~sometimes~ run next to rows of Echinacea angustifolia planted in common garden experiments. Although protocol varies depending on the experimental plot, every year team members record flowering phenology data, measuring data, and harvest the heads of the thousands of plants we have in common garden experiments.
Note that these experiments are not really gardens. “Common garden” refers to the experimental design. Most of our experimental plots are prairie restorations, a few are abandoned ag fields that are manged as grassland habitat. Some plots have multiple experiments within. The Echinacea Project currently has 10 established experimental plots:
exPts01-10. To avoid repetitiveness of reports on yearly phenology, measuring, and harvesting, this project status report will include updates on all experimental plots 1, 4, 5, and 8. Reports for the others will be elsewhere: Jennifer’s plot (exPt02) Amy Dykstra’s plot (exPt03), the hybrid plots (exPt06, exPt07, exPt09), and the West Central Area common garden (exPt10).
exPt01: Experimental plot 1 was first planted in 1996 (cleverly termed the 1996 cohort), and has been planted with nine other experiments in subsequent years, with the most recent planting being Amy Waananen’s inter-remnant crosses. It is the largest of the experimental plots, with over 10,000 planted positions; experiments in the plot include testing fitness differences between remnants (1996, 1997, 1999), quantifying effects of inbreeding (inb1, inb2), and assessing quantitative genetic variation (qgen1). There are also a number of smaller experiments in it, including fitness of Hesperostipa spartea, aphid addition and exclusion, and pollen addition and exclusion. In 2021, we visited 6,673 of the original 10,673 planted and found 3,085 alive. Only 79 plants were classified as “flowering” in exPt01 this year. This is a drastic decrease from the 484 plants that flowered in summer 2020– perhaps it is a testament to the benefits of controlled burning (we burned in spring 2020 but not in 2021). In summer 2021, we harvested 77 total Echinacea heads in exPt01 (we have not finished the inventory process). In the fall, we added 403 staples to positions where plants were gone for three straight years. We also converted the flaple>s (pin flags bent in half in spots where we ran out of staples) into regular old staples. There are no more flaples in p1!
exPt04: Experimental plot 4 was planted to gauge whether Echinacea from small remnant populations could be genetically rescued via an outcross to larger, more genetically diverse populations. Caroline Ridley and other members planted this plot in 2008. We did not measure exPt04 this year, but there were no flowering plants. Location: Hegg Lake WMA
exPt05: The only experimental plot planted at Staffanson Prairie Preserve (SPP), exPt05, was planted to compare progeny of maternal plants from burned and unburned sections of SPP. There were 2800 plants planted originally, but high mortality made it impractical to visit the plot row-by-row. Now, we and treat the plot like demography. We use our survey-grade GPS to find plants in exPt05 that have previously flowered and add more plants to the stake file if new plants in the plot flower. In 2021 we found 11 living plants, three of which were flowering! There was only twohead to collect, one head was toppled. Location: Staffanson Prairie Preserve
exPt08: Team Echinacea established quantitative genetics experiments to quantify additive genetic variance of fitness in Echinacea, with the idea that we can estimate evolutionary potential of study populations. The maternal parents of qGen2 and qGen3 are plants in the 1996, 1997, and 1999 cohorts. These plants were crossed with pollen from plants in remnants to produce seed for qGen2 and qGen3, which now inhabit exPt08. Originally, 12,813 seeds were sown in the common garden. Seeds from the same cross (shared maternal and paternal plants) were sown in meter-long segments between nails. A total of 3,253 seedlings were originally found, but only 443 plants were found alive in 2021. There were 28 flowering plants in 2021, and 32 heads. This is the most flowering heads in p8 we have ever seen, the first year plants flowered in p8 was 2019 and in 2020 five plants flowered. Note that there were an additional 14 heads collected from transplant plot.
Plot management: To ensure that the common garden environment is as similar as possible to the prairie environment we must actively manage it. This management includes removing foreign species and supplementing with natives. One of our main management methods is through fire. We were able to burn burn p8 this spring and hope to burn p1 this spring. We also collected seed to spread after burns including Schizachyrium scoparium, Bouteloua curtipendula, along with multiple species of Solidago and quite a few Asters.
Asclepias viridiflora in p1: In 2019, plugs of an uncommon prairie milkweed, Asclepias viridiflora, were planted in Experimental plot 1. The purpose of this experiment is to assess the survival and fitness of A. viridiflora. Assessing vitality will also provide a frame of reference for species conservation across modern prairies. We did not assess the A. viridiflora plants this year.
Hesperostipa demography: In 2009 and 2010, porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea, a.k.a. “stipa”) was planted in experimental plot 1. In total, 4417 seeds were planted, 1 m apart from each other and all 10 cm north of Echinacea plants. Between 2010 and 2013, each position was checked, and the plant status recorded. Since 2014, we have searched for flowering plants. The data from this summer can be found here cgdata/summer2021/stipaSearch & Dropbox/CGData/Stipa/225_measure/measure2021 in addition to data in these locations there may be paper data sheets that may or may not have been entered yet. These data have not been processed yet.
Inb1: The INB1 experiment investigates the relationship between inbreeding level and fitness in Echinacea angustifolia. Each plant in experiment INB1 originates from one of three cross types, depending on the relatedness of the parents: between maternal half siblings; between plants from the same remnant, but not sharing a maternal or paternal parent; and between individuals from different remnants. We continued to measure fitness and flowering phenology in these plants. In 2021, of the original 557 plants in INB1, 95were still alive. Of the plants that were alive this year, there was only one flowering plant. All individuals were planted in 2001.
qgen: The qGen1 (quantitative genetics) experiment in p1 was designed to quantify the heritability of traits in Echinacea angustifolia. We are especially interested in Darwinian fitness. Could fitness be heritable? During the summer of 2002 we crossed plants from the 1996 & 1997 cohorts of exPt01. We harvested heads, dissected achenes, and germinated seeds over the winter. In the Spring of 2003 we planted the resulting 4468 seedlings (this great number gave rise to this experiment’s nickname “big batch”). In 2021 we assessed survival and fitness measures of the qGen1 plants. 1,519 plants in qGen1 were alive in 2021. Of those, 2.4% flowered in 2021, this is down from 17% last year. All were planted in 2003.
Team moral: Measuring experimental plot 1 is a large task for the team, it takes many days, usually hot days, with a project as large as this it is hard for the team to feel a sense of progress each day. So this year in hopes to keep the team more motivated I(Mia) took two strategies. First, we constructed a physical progress tracker, each square represented a segment in the plot A segment is a section of a row, rows are too big so we break them into sections for ease of measuring. After each day of measuring the team was able to count how many segments they completed and color in each square. The team had fun with their square decoration and got creative with it, there was various themes, fruits, names for peoples last days etc. I also made maps of the plot for each day of measuring that were color coded with what positions have been measured and which ones haven’t. Lastly, I do believe I may have bribed the team with cookies. Having multiple different forms of motivation, really kept the team motived and made the project less daunting. It was also added some excitement into measuring p1, a task that isn’t known for being too exciting.
one of the progress maps purple is done green is not done
one of the progress maps purple is done green is not done
A hearty crew finishing measuring p1 during one of the only rainy days of the season
Progress tracker aka Gopher tunnel of love
For more information on survival in common garden experiments, see this flog post about survival in common gardens.
Start year: Various, see individual listings above. First ever planting was 1996.
Location: Various, see above
Overlaps with: Pretty much everything we do.
Data/ materials collected: Measure data for all plots. All raw measure data available in cgData repository. Processed data should eventually be available in SQL database; ask GK for status of SQL database.
new p79 stake file: Jared made a cleaned up stake file for p7 and p9 that can be found here
p2 stake file/points shot: Amy shot points in p2 this year the points can be found in these 3 jobs
Over the last two years I designed and planted an experiment in an already established prairie restoration (exPt01) to test hypotheses about the effects of parasite inclusion in restorations. This experimental planting of hemiparasites has three factors (Comandra umbellata, Pedicularis canadensis, and soil plugs), each with two levels (presence or absence), but three factor-level combinations are impossible because the presence of parasites is confounded with presence of soil. This translates to me having 216 row x position combinations in which I randomly assigned Comandra umbellata, Pedicularis canadensis, and soil plugs. However, roots trap soil and therefore soil is always carried in with parasites, the two treatments are confounded and so we used soil transplants to account for this.
In June, I went out and assessed the realized design of my experimental planting of hemiparasites. I assessed presence or absence of Comandra umbellata and Pedicularis canadensis at each of my 216 row x position combinations. I found only one Comandra but I found 30/72 or 42% of all Pedicularis.
In late August through early September, I planted 1 plug of Liatris ligulistylis and one plug of Solidago speciosa at each of my 216 locations. These plants were then measured. I added these plugs to serve as response variables to my three-factored experiment.
Last year, at all 216 locations I distributed seeds from 32 native plant species. In September, I went out and assessed seedlings present. I recorded the number and photographed the seedling to identify later in the laboratory.
In late October I intend to harvest 216 strips (0.1m x 1.0m) of dried biomass (1/6th of the dried biomass) from my 216 locations as I have also done in the last 2 years.
Start year: 2019
Location: Douglas County, Minnesota; exPt 1
Overlaps with: Experimental plot management, Hesperostipa common garden experiment
Materials collected: 216 .1 x 1m strips of dried biomass are stored at the Chicago Botanic Garden.
North winds and dry conditions persisted Monday (May 10) giving us an opportunity to conduct prescribed burns at p10, our experimental plot at West Central Area High School. In addition to being a home to 1400 coneflower plants and Amy W.’s gene flow experiment, these plots serve as an excellent educational resources for John VanKempen, high school science teacher at WCA and long-time member of Team Echinacea. John established an experiment in which each of the twelve 8 x 10 m plots is burned during spring, fall, or not at all. This will help us understand how fire affects the survival of Echinacea seedlings. John also uses these plots as a teaching resource for high school students at WCA.
Because this burn was conducted within Barrett city limits, John needed to get special permission from the mayor and fire chief. Plus members of the volunteer fire department needed to be present. So we met up with Jenny and DJ (from Barrett’s volunteer fire department) as well as TJ and Braeden (from Hoffman’s volunteer fire department). Before burning, Stuart, John, and I chatted with members of the volunteer fire department (who included several of John’s former students!). It was a great opportunity for us to learn from community members about their experiences with prescribed burns and their knowledge of prairies. For example, DJ owns a parcel of prairie just a little outside Barrett that was passed down from his father. TJ works for the DNR’s roving burn crew based in Elbow Lake. Talking with members of the fire department also gave us an opportunity to share a little more about the science behind why we conduct prescribed burns. We also shared information about the Echinacea Project’s research in west central Minnesota investigating how fire benefits native prairie plants as well as the diversity of insects, birds, and other species that call Minnesota’s tallgrass prairie home.
Oh and of course we partnered up with these local firefighters to burn 8 prairie plots! With dry fuel conditions and pretty heavy fuel in spots, we laid down wet lines and ignited a backing fire that moved slowly against the wind. In plots with primarily warm-season grasses, we secured the downwind (south) break and ignited down the east and west flanks before lighting a head fires that went screaming across the dry big bluestem. For plots with few warm season grasses and lots of brome, we chose to use exclusively backing fire in hopes of setting back the brome and achieving a consistent black across the entire plot. This technique worked well to achieve the desired result.
The final burn unit encompassed 3 adjacent experimental plots. The northernmost of these plots had dense big bluestem. We expected the fuel in this plot and gentle slope would produce quite a head fire. The plot did not disappoint. Members of local volunteer fire departments and the Echinacea Project worked together to secure the downwind fire break and blacken the downwind third of the burn unit consisting of three adjacent experimental plots. Once we had sufficient black and the east and west flanks of the unit were secured, we ignited a spectacular head fire that burned through the dense stand of big bluestem in less than a minute.
Thanks to Jenny and DJ from the Barrett volunteer fire department as well as TJ and Braeden from the Hoffman fire department for helping us conduct prescribed burns at the high school and sharing their experiences about fire and prairies in western Minnesota!
Temperature: 52 F Relative Humidity: 24% Wind Speed: 10 mph Wind Direction: NE Ignition time: 4:50 PM End time: 6:12 PM Burn Crew: Jared, Stuart, John, Jenny, DJ, TJ, Braeden
Last week Stuart, Gretel, Jared, and I headed northward from Chicago to Minnesota to perform the first prescribed burn of the season! On our drive up we hit some snow that was almost whiteout conditions very exciting, especially for April. We arrived in Douglas County late Wednesday night and quickly bundled into our sleeping bags.
Stuart examining the test fire of the Island
The next morning, we walked the unit/p8 and saw two bald eagles flying over the plot, we decided that this was a good omen for the burn. There are two areas in the unit that haven’t been burned in the past that we decided to burn this year, this was the island that is northeast of the plot and the “bee trees”. After examining the unit we set off to prep the unit and gather supplies. After a break for lunch, we ran a test of how the wooded area would burn by burning the island area. This burn went well, the fire moved slowly but we did kill a frog :(. Halfway through this burn Ruth and Frank arrived from the Cities, they were greeted with excitement and backpack sprayers.
After the success of burning through the woods in the island, we decided to burn through the bee trees. The bee trees burned very slowly Frank and I spend most of the burn focused on ensuring that no sparks from the bee’s trees got taken in the wind downhill. To the south of the bee trees, the burn brake is only mowed and still has quite a bit of brome that could be fuel. We were all shocked by the civilized behavior that the fire had around this burn break. Once we had a sufficient backfire Stuart light the head fire in the windward portion of the plot and boy it was spectacular. Our civilized fire politely ripped through the brome of p8 and even left many pin flags untouched!
The backfire heading southThe head fire heading through p8
After we were satisfied with the large p8 unit fire being out we gathered, including John VanKempen who arrived during the course of the p8 burn. We then headed down to Jean’s prairie plant garden and Jared, who was the burn boss for the final two burns, light a nice line around the perimeter of the garden, this burn only took 16 minutes. When we were waiting for the garden to burn we noticed a small adjacent patch of dried duff and we decided to burn that too! This burn went even faster than the prairie garden it was also much more powerful.
The burn crew! Left Gretel, Jared, Mia, John, Ruth, Frank (Stuart not pictured)
After the prairie garden and adjacent area were done burning, Stuart, Gretel, Jared and I made sure that everything was put out back at p8. We found a smoldering log and made some s’mores!
The next day, Jared and I inspected the remnant sites that we are planning on burning. Jared, Stuart, and I also broadcast some native prairie seeds (mostly two grasses: side-oats grama and little bluestem) that we collected in the fall in p8.
We performed this burn a week ago now, on Earth Day, performing a prescribed burn that aids in the restoration of the prairie was a wonderful way to celebrate. This was my first prescribed burn, overall it was really fun, impressive, exciting, and also boring. I am very excited to be heading back up to Minnesota to conduct more burns but also to see how the community changes after the burn.
The charred and snow-sprinkled plot on Saturday morning
Since 1996, members of Team Echinacea have walked, crawled, and ~sometimes~ run next to rows of Echinacea angustifolia planted in common garden experiments. Although protocol varies depending on the experimental plot, every year team members record flowering phenology data, measuring data, and harvest the heads of the thousands of plants we have in common garden experiments.
Note that these experiments are not really gardens. “Common garden” refers to the experimental design. Most of our experimental plots are prairie restorations, a few are abandoned ag fields that are manged as grassland habitat. Some plots have multiple experiments within. The Echinacea Project currently has 10 established experimental plots:
exPts01-10. To avoid repetitiveness of reports on yearly phenology, measuring, and harvesting, this project status report will include updates on all experimental plots 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Reports for the others will be elsewhere: Amy Dykstra’s plot (exPt03), the hybrid plots (exPt06, exPt07, exPt09), and the West Central Area common garden (exPt10).
exPt01: Experimental plot 1 was first planted in 1996 (cleverly termed the 1996 cohort), and has been planted with nine other experiments in subsequent years, with the most recent planting being Amy Waananen’s inter-remnant crosses. It is the largest of the experimental plots, with over 10,000 planted positions; experiments in the plot include testing fitness differences between remnants (1996, 1997, 1999), quantifying effects of inbreeding (inb1, inb2), and assessing quantitative genetic variation (qgen1). There are also a number of smaller experiments in it, including fitness of Hesperostipa spartea, aphid addition and exclusion, and pollen addition and exclusion. In 2020, we visited 4,340 of the original 10,622 planted and found 3,258 alive. Only 484 plants were classified as “flowering” in exPt01 this year. This is a drastic increase from the nearly 70 plants that flowered in summer 2019 – perhaps it is a testament to the benefits of controlled burning (we burned in spring 2020 but not in 2019). In summer 2020, we harvested ~815 total Echinacea heads in exPt01 (I have not finished the reconciliation process). In the fall, we added 484 staples to positions where plants were gone for three straight years, however, we ran out of staples, so 130 of these positions have “flaples” which are bent pin flags.
exPt02: Heritability of flowering time is the name of the game in exPt02. Planted in 2006, exPt02 was planted to assess heritability of flowering start date and duration in Echinacea. In summer 2020, we visited 2,010 positions of the 3,961 positions originally planted. We measured 1,638 living plants, of which 444 were flowering. In the fall, we harvested ~626 heads from exPt02. We do not have an exact number of heads harvested from exPt02 yet, as we have not had time to complete head reconciliation. Location: Hegg Lake WMA
exPt04: Experimental plot 4 was planted to gauge whether Echinacea from small remnant populations could be genetically rescued via an outcross to larger, more genetically diverse populations. Caroline Ridley and other members planted this plot in 2008. We did not measure exPt04 this year. Location: Hegg Lake WMA
exPt05: The only experimental plot planted at Staffanson Prairie Preserve (SPP), exPt05, was planted to compare progeny of maternal plants from burned and unburned sections of SPP. There were 2800 plants planted originally, but high mortality made it impractical to visit the plot row-by-row. Now, we and treat the plot like demography. We use our survey-grade GPS to find plants in exPt05 that have previously flowered and add more plants to the stake file if new plants in the plot flower. In 2020 we found 11 living plants, two of which were flowering! There was only one head to collect, since one of the flowering plants exhibited only vertical development (no head). Location: Staffanson Prairie Preserve
exPt08: Team Echinacea established quantitative genetics experiments to quantify additive genetic variance of fitness in Echinacea, with the idea that we can estimate evolutionary potential of study populations. The maternal parents of qGen2 and qGen3 are plants in the 1996, 1997, and 1999 cohorts. These plants were crossed with pollen from plants in remnants to produce seed for qGen2 and qGen3, which now inhabit exPt08. Originally, 12,813 seeds were sown in the common garden. Seeds from the same cross (shared maternal and paternal plants) were sown in meter-long segments between nails. A total of 3,253 seedlings were originally found, but only 562 plants were found alive in 2020. There were 5 flowering plants in 2020, and 5 heads. Note that there were an additional 2 heads collected from transplant plot.
Plot management: To ensure that the common garden environment is as similar as possible to the prairie environment we must actively manage it. This management includes removing foreign species and supplementing with natives. One of our main management methods is through fire. We were unable to burn plots this fall however we hope to burn p8 and p1 this spring. We also collected seed to spread after burns including Schizachyrium scoparium, Bouteloua curtipendula, along with multiple species of Solidago and quite a few Asters.
Asclepias viridiflora in p1: In 2019, plugs of an uncommon prairie milkweed, Asclepias viridiflora, were planted in Experimental plot 1. The purpose of this experiment is to assess the survival and fitness of A. viridiflora. Assessing vitality will also provide a frame of reference for species conservation across modern prairies. In 2020 a protocol was developed to identify and measure A. viridiflora. These data are waiting to be entered and analyzed.
Hesperostipa demography: In 2009 and 2010, porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea, a.k.a. “stipa”) was planted in experimental plot 1. In total, 4417 seeds were planted, 1 m apart from each other and all 10 cm north of Echinacea plants. Between 2010 and 2013, each position was checked, and the plant status recorded. Since 2014, we have searched for flowering plants. The data from this summer can be found here cgdata/summer2020/stipaSearch, these data have not been processed yet.
Inb1: The INB1 experiment investigates the relationship between inbreeding level and fitness in Echinacea angustifolia. Each plant in experiment INB1 originates from one of three cross types, depending on the relatedness of the parents: between maternal half siblings; between plants from the same remnant, but not sharing a maternal or paternal parent; and between individuals from different remnants. We continued to measure fitness and flowering phenology in these plants. In 2020, of the original 557 plants in INB1, 111 were still alive. Of the plants that were alive this year, 30 (27%) were flowering. This is up from the 4% that were flowering last year. All individuals were planted in 2001.
qgen: The qGen1 (quantitative genetics) experiment in p1 was designed to quantify the heritability of traits in Echinacea angustifolia. We are especially interested in Darwinian fitness. Could fitness be heritable? During the summer of 2002 we crossed plants from the 1996 & 1997 cohorts of exPt01. We harvested heads, dissected achenes, and germinated seeds over the winter. In the Spring of 2003 we planted the resulting 4468 seedlings (this great number gave rise to this experiment’s nickname “big batch”). In 2020 we assessed survival and fitness measures of the qGen1 plants. 1,642 plants in qGen1 were alive in 2020. Of those, 17% flowered in 2020. All were planted in 2003.
Stuart and John measure Echinacea plants in exPt02 under a gloomy sky
For more information on survival in common garden experiments, see this flog post about survival in common gardens.
Start year: Various, see individual listings above. First ever planting was 1996.
Location: Various, see above
Overlaps with: Pretty much everything we do.
Data/ materials collected: Measure data for all plots. All raw measure data available in cgData repository. Processed data should eventually be available in SQL database; ask GK for status of SQL database. GPS points were shot for the exPt09 flowering plant. Find the GPS jobs containing the exPt09 corners here: Dropbox/geospatialDataBackup2020/convertedASVandCSV2020/EXPT9_20200917_DARW.asv The stake file to find exPt5 plants is here: Dropbox/geospatialDataBackup2020/stakeFiles2020/exPt05stakeFile.csv Products: Many publications and independent projects.
This summer Jay Fordham conducted an experiment in
experimental plot 8 to determine an effective method for eradicating Fraxinus pennsylvanica, or green ash.
Team Echinacea is concerned with the spread of green ash in our experimental
plots because it crowds out native herbs. The Echinacea in exPt8 may be at
particular risk due to their young age relative to individuals in other plots.
A prior attempt to manage ash in exPt8 with triclopyr (brand name Garlon)
largely failed, resulting in only 3% mortality.
Jay devised three treatments of triclopyr application to green ash. The three treatments were 1) A foliar application where he painted all leaves with triclopyr; 2) A bark application where he cut each ash 10cm from the base and applied triclopyr to the remaining above-ground stem; and 3) A cambium application where he cut each ash 10cm from the base, scraped off the exterior bark with a knife, and applied triclopyr to the remaining above-ground stem. He divided exPt8 into 35 treatment sections and randomly assigned a treatment to each section. He then randomized the treatment application order and, with the help of the team, treated 438 green ash trees from July 22nd to August 8th. Jay then assessed ash mortality on August 27th and 28th and found the cambium application to be most effective. Jay presented his findings at the 2019 Midstates Undergraduate Research Symposium in St. Louis on November 1-2. His presentation is available to view and download here.
Triclopyr treatment
Mean Proportion Dead Stems
Foliar application
0.005
Cutting and bark application
0.333
Cutting and cambium application
0.498
In addition to the green ash management experiment in exPt8,
the team removed Bird’s-foot trefoil from exPt1 and along the bordering road.
The team also removed sweet clover from within and around exPt1, exPt2 and
exPt3. The team cut back sumac from the easternmost rows of exPt1.
Jay brandishing sweet clover plants that the team pulled in exPt1
In June the team planted Asclepias
viridiflora in exPt1 at regular intervals. Stuart initially assessed
approximately 124 surviving plugs prior to planting. Erin and Riley, while
pulling flags marking the planting locations in September, did not observe any
surviving milkweed plants. The team also planted Carex gravida and Carex
brevior in the path around exPt1. The team planted three of the same carex
species at each location in a triangular configuration. Erin shot the planting
positions with the GPS pole in the center of the three plants, or between two
where two survived, or north of a single plant where one survived. In October
she observed that approximately 2/3rds of the carex plantings were present.
Location: exPts 1, 2 and 8
Data/materials collected: Weeds were discarded outside the plot as they were removed.
Find information about Jay’s experiment at
~Dropbox\teamEchinacea2019\jayFordham
Find information about the planting locations of the
Asclepias viridiflora at ~Dropbox\CGData\Asclepias\plantPlugs2019.csv
Find the two GPS jobs containing the carex locations in
~Dropbox\geospatialDataBackup2019, saved in three formats in
temporaryDarwBackups2019, convertedXML2019 and convertedASVandCSV2019. The job
names are CAREX_P1_20190801_DARW and CAREX_P1_20191003_DARW.
Throughout the summer, I designed and collected
materials to establish an experiment in experimental plot 1 to study parasites
and their impact on the community of host plants they live in. Parasitic plants
are plants which absorb nutrients from neighboring plants. Parasitism is an important
part of nutrient cycling in many ecosystems and parasite scientists hypothesize
it to be an important part of prairie ecosystem maintenance.
This summer I collected seeds from five parasitic
plant species which are native to the prairie. I also collected the seeds of
over 100 species that can be commonly found in Douglas County, Minnesota and I
have begun experimental germination of them and will continue to do so in the
future. I developed a plan to plant Comandra and Pedicularis throughout exPt 1
and establish communities of 40 host species around them to address questions
about the impact native parasitic plants have on plant community members. In
late October I harvested biomass from the proposed parasite planting locations
to understand the species diversity and abundance present before planting.
Start year: 2019
Location: Douglas County, Minnesota; exPt 1
Overlaps with: Experimental plot management, Hesperostipa common garden
experiment
Materials collected: Parasitic plant seeds (Cuscuta
glomerata:18,000 across 6 individuals in 4 locations; Agalinis aspera: ~8,000
across 81 individuals in 3 locations; Agalinis tenuifolia: ~4,500 across
41 individuals in 1 location; Pedicularis canadensis: ~14,000 from 1
location; and Comandra umbellata: ~1,800 from 3 locations) and host
plant seeds (500+ seeds per host species, numbering approximately 100 species).
Seeds are stored at the Chicago Botanic Garden.
Additionally, 216 .1 x 1m strips of dried biomass are
stored at the Chicago Botanic Garden.
Data collected: Find data related to this project
including the proposed planting scheme in the cgdata repository in
~cgdata\summer2019\Hemiparasites
