In addition to collecting data in the experimental plots, we also manage vegetation in order to maintain consistent experimental conditions. This summer, Team Echinacea used the herbicide triclopyr to push back encroaching sumac (Rhus glabra) in experimental plots 1, 2, and 8. We also trimmed Sorghastrum nutans in exPt08 and harvested a lone hybrid head in exPt06, and are planning a controlled burn in exPt08.
Herbicide Treatment
Two different methods of triclopyr application were used. The first, which we call the “cut + treat” method, involves severing the main stem of the sumac plant with loppers and treating the cut surface (and ~10cm of stem below the cut surface) with triclopyr. This method was primarily used for denser patches of sumac. The second method, which we call the “left standing” method, involves treating ~10cm of the still-standing stem of the sumac plant with triclopyr. This method was primarily used for sparser or shorter patches of sumac.
For a glimpse into our herbicide application process, see this flog post.
Our map of sumac extent in exPt02. For more maps, see the Dropbox location below
We used a cotton glove, worn over a protective nitrile glove, to apply the triclopyr. After dipping a few fingers of the absorbent glove in triclopyr, we could easily “paint” the herbicide onto sumac stems. In both treatment methods, triclopyr application typically occurred just below the lowest branches on the main sumac stem. We were careful to limit our herbicide application to the target species, Rhus glabra. If a sumac plant was so close to an Echinacea plant that accidental cross-contamination might occur, we did not treat it.
Details of herbicide application in individual experimental plots can be found below:
exPt01 (excluding 99s)
A dense patch of sumac runs along the entire east side of exPt01, and has been encroaching into the plot for years. This year, we established a perimeter of ~2 m around the entire plot and treated all sumac within the plot. We also treated a patch of sumac on the western edge of the plot, around position 955.
99 south
While the 99s garden itself was relatively free of sumac, it was surrounded by sumac on all sides. Sumac on the south side was especially dense and tall, reaching heights of over 2 m. We chose to treat all sumac within and surrounding the plot, up until the boundary created by a mowed path roughly 2-5 m from the plot’s edge.
While treating sumac on 1-Sep-2026, we found an inhabited bird nest (species unknown) constructed in a sumac plant to the northeast of the plot. We left a 1 m perimeter around the nest and treated this perimeter on 15-Sep-2026, once the nest had been abandoned
exPt02
When we first visited exPt02, dense patches of sumac could be found along the southern border of exPt02, as well as around the northeast corner and within the plot itself. Shorter, sparser sumac was also present throughout the plot, as well as a handful of 2-3 meter tall trees (ash or boxelder). We started by clearing a 2 m perimeter around the plot and removing the trees, then treated the remaining sumac within the plot over the following weeks.
exPt08
Of the four experimental plots where we conducted herbicide treatment, exPt08 had the least amount of sumac, with only a couple of sparse patches along the plot perimeter. However, small trees (primarily ash) are scattered throughout the northern part of the plot. These trees will probably require more extensive management in the coming years.
Sorghastrum nutans Management
While we appreciate the presence of native prairie grasses in the experimental plots, they can form a dense leaf litter which makes it more difficult to locate Echinacea plants. Sorghastrum nutans, a native warm-season grass, is already omnipresent in exPt01, but it has not yet taken over exPt08. In order to slow its spread in the plot, we used pruners and hedge-trimmers to remove the every S. nutans inflorescence before (we hope) the grass was able to set seed.
In 2011, 66 hybrid Echinacea seedlings were planted in exPt06, a small plot west of exPt08. We are no longer measuring in exPt06, but we did notice that one of the hybrid plants was flowering. In order to prevent propagation of hybrid achenes, we harvested this head (though not before pollination occurred). We also took some measurements: the plant had 1 head (83 cm tall), 1 flowering rosette, and 0 basal rosettes. The head had a blue twist tie, and its row/position was not recorded.
Another regular method of experimental plot management is prescribed burning, which naturally favors native prairie species over woody invaders. None of the experimental plots were burned prior to the 2026 field season. We are planning to conduct a prescribed burn in exPt08 (and maybe exPt01/99s) during fall 2026 or spring 2027. Before a burn in exPt08, all flags placed south of the plot (between exPt08 and Highway 27) should be removed. There is also the question of the viola experiment, which may be affected by a prescribed burn.
Location: exPt08 (Wagenius property)
Treatment date: Fall 2026 or Spring 2027 (depending on conditions)
Now that Team Echinacea 2026 is more than half-way done with our season, were doing some house keeping items to help fill the time, one of which is killing weeds in our experimental plots! Our biggest weed to kill right now is Rhus glabra, or smooth sumac. Although sumac is a native plant to Minnesota, it makes ours, and Echinacea angustifolias, life a whole lot harder out in the common gardens. It spreads very fast when not managed, and makes walking through much more difficult.
We tested two types of application of triclopyr on sumac. In ExPt01, we worked by ourselves and applied triclopyr to the bottom 10cm of each stem. In ExPt02 we worked in pairs, one person would chop the tops off of sumac and the other would apply the herbicide to the top 10cm of the available plant, including the exposed top. We found that our application in ExPt02 went faster and made application easier.
Both applications of herbicide on sumac were not in the plots themselves but were on the borders of the plots. Soon we will work on herbicide application in the common gardens.
The Southwest Border of ExPt02The Southeast Border of ExPt02Myself, Ready to Utterly Demolish Several Box Elder Trees
The Echinacea Project, and its principal investigator Stuart Wagenius, is responsible for the foundation of one of the most comprehensive and long-running studies of prairie plants. Experimental plots use a common garden design and include experiments involving inbreeding, aphid addition and exclusion, flowering phenology, pollen addition and exclusion, and more. The Echinacea angustifolia in experimental plot 1 were planted as far back as 1996; while they have experienced mortality over the years, many of these plants are still alive. Team Echinacea, most of which are younger than the plants we work with, have been hard at work collecting measurements to add to the ever-expanding dataset. We take data on things like the number of rosettes, leaves, and flowering heads a plant has, as well as insect activity and disease spread, to help determine the fitness of the plants in various treatments.
A common wood-nymph being thwarted by our pollinator-exclusion bagsAn Agapostemon virescens visiting echinacea in ExPt01A fungus commonly found growing in ExPt01A jumping spider on the hunt, likely preying on floral visitorsDragonflies, abundant in ExPt08Aaron, having a standoff with a grasshopper
As of August 1, 2025, we have measured approximately 60% of experimental plot 1, which has over 11,000 planted positions. Having accomplished so much, we plan on beginning harvesting soon next week. After the heads are harvested, the achenes will be sent to the Chicago Botanic garden, where interns and volunteers will work to determine the flowers’ seed set. Throughout the rest of the field season, Team Echinacea will continue measuring in ExPt01, and begin on ExPt08, ExPt09, ExPt07, and ExPt02.
This is a map of measuring progress in ExPt01, where the blue segments have been completed and the white, unfilled sections are soon to be measured. We measure by experiment, concluding one before we move to another. We have completed the inbreeding 1 cohort, the inbreeding 2 cohort, and the first generation of the heritability of fitness experiment. Currently, we are working on the 99 main garden, a series of rows planted by Stuart in 1999.
A rainbow-like cloud glows over exPt01 while the team was in MN for fall 2023 burns. A good omen for the field season that followed!
Introduction
Every year since 1996, members of Team Echinacea have recorded flowering phenology, taking measure data and harvested heads from thousands of Echinacea angustifolia plants in plots with “common garden” experimental designs. These experimental plots are located in prairie remnants, restorations, and abandoned agricultural fields that are managed as grassland habitat. Currently, the Echinacea Project has 10 established experimental plots. Some plots have multiple ongoing experiments within.
In the past few years, we have scaled back significantly on taking phenology records in the experimental plots. During 2023 and 2024, our primary goals with phenology were to a) map out the positions of flowering plants/heads within the plots, b) deploy twist ties to all flowering heads to ease measuring and harvesting, and c) to record the day of first flowering for all heads in plots to continue the long-term data collection in a more scaled-back fashion. As a result, we conducted only a few rounds of phenology per plot and did not capture the full range of flowering dates for every head. Phenology info is briefly reported on in each plot’s update along with the location of the data. This applies to the hybrid experimental plots as well.
Crew members Wyatt and Emma search can’t find positions in 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). It also houses a number of smaller experiments, including fitness of Hesperostipa spartea, aphid addition and exclusion, and pollen addition and exclusion (these experiments have separate posts).
In 2024, we conducted phenology in this plot between July 8th and July 18th. During measure, we visited 3123 of the 10,992 positions planted and found 2728 living plants. 83 plants were classified as “flowering” in exPt01 this year, totally 96 heads. This is a significantly fewer plants than flowered in summer 2023 (560). In summer 2024, we harvested 82 total Echinacea heads in exPt01 (including many from the ever-productive 99 south garden).
ExPt01 is also the only plot to have staples marking positions where plants that have died used to be. We added 67 staples to the experimental plot this year, but only in locations that we couldn’t find staples during measure that were already supposed to be there. We didn’t have time to get to every position with a missing staple (see where we covered here: Dropbox/CGData/125_measure/measure2024/staple2024/2024addStaplesExPt01.pdf). We did not have time to re-search locations that we called plants “can’t finds” at three years in a row in 2023 and 2024. Once these locations receive their final search, hopefully in 2025, we can put staples at them as well.
This experiment was started in 2020 by Amy Waananen to understand how the distance between plants in space and in their timing of flowering influences the fitness of their offspring. If plants that are located close together or flower at the same time are closely related, their offspring might be more closely related and inbred, and have lower fitness than plants that are far apart and/or flower more asynchronously. Plants in this experiment resulted from interremnant hand-crossings from 9 remnants: On27, SGC, GC, NGC, EELR, KJ, NNWLF, NWLF, LF. Crossing took place in 2020 and 2021, and individuals were planted in 2020 (as seed) and 2022 (as plugs). Surviving plants were assigned cgPlaIds in 2023 and incorporated into the p1 workflow. Mortality in this experiment has been high, with 80.3% of positions searched in 2024 resulting in “can’t finds.”. We did not re-search “can’t find” positions in 2024 due to time constraints (with Amy’s approval).
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.
The inb2 experiment investigates the relationship between inbreeding level and fitness in Echinacea angustifolia. Each plant in experiment inb2 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 2006. We continued to measure fitness and flowering phenology in these plants. In October 2024, former team member Riley Thoen recently published a paper in the Journal of Hereditary on the conservation value of small remnants using results from this experiment.
The qGen1 (quantitative genetics, or just qGen) 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”).
data in cgData repo: ~/cgData/summer2024/exPt01Phenology
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 SQL database
data in echinaceaLab package (hh.2024)
Samples collected:
82 heads harvested
At cbg for processing (counted, ready to randomize)
Products:
Publications
Thoen, R. D., A. Southgate, G. Kiefer, R.G. Shaw, S. Wagenius, The conservation value of small population remnants: Variability in inbreeding depression and heterosis of a perennial herb, the narrow-leaved purple coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia). 2024. Journal of Heredity esae055. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esae055.
Page, M. L., Ison, J. L., Bewley, A. L., Holsinger, K. M., Kaul, A. D., Koch, K. E., Kolis, K. M., and Wagenius, S. 2019. Pollinator effectiveness in a composite: A specialist bee pollinates more florets but does not move pollen farther than other visitors. American Journal of Botany 106: 1487–1498. PDF
Waananen, A., G. Kiefer, J. L. Ison, and S. Wagenius. 2018. Mating opportunity increases with synchrony of flowering among years more than synchrony within years in a nonmasting perennial. The American Naturalist 192: 379-388. PDF | Appendix | online version
Muller, K. and S. Wagenius. 2016. Echinacea angustifolia and its specialist ant-tended aphid: a multi-year study of manipulated and naturally-occurring aphid infestation. Ecological Entomology 41: 51-60. PDF | online version
Shaw, R. G., S. Wagenius and C. J. Geyer. 2015. The susceptibility of Echinacea angustifolia to a specialist aphid: eco-evolutionary perspective on genotypic variation and demographic consequences. Journal of Ecology 103: 809-818. PDF
Kittelson, P., S. Wagenius, R. Nielsen, S. Qazi, M. Howe, G. Kiefer, and R. G. Shaw. 2015. Leaf functional traits, herbivory, and genetic diversity in Echinacea: Implications for fragmented populations. Ecology 96: 1877–1886. PDF
Ison, J.L., and S. Wagenius. 2014. Both flowering time and spatial isolation affect reproduction in Echinacea angustifolia. Journal of Ecology 102: 920–929. PDF | Supplemental Material | Archived Data
Ison, J.L., S. Wagenius, D. Reitz., M.V. Ashley. 2014. Mating between Echinacea angustifolia (Asteraceae) individuals increases with their flowering synchrony and spatial proximity. American Journal of Botany 101: 180-189. PDF
Ridley CE, Hangelbroek HH, Wagenius S, Stanton-Geddes J, Shaw RG, 2011. The effect of plant inbreeding and stoichiometry on interactions with herbivores in nature: Echinacea angustifolia and its specialist aphid. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24762. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024762
Wagenius, S., H. H. Hangelbroek, C. E. Ridley, and R. G. Shaw. 2010. Biparental inbreeding and interremnant mating in a perennial prairie plant: fitness consequences for progeny in their first eight years. Evolution 64: 761-771. Abstract | PDF
Ruth G. Shaw, Charles J. Geyer, Stuart Wagenius, Helen H. Hangelbroek, and Julie R. Etterson. 2008. Unifying life-history analyses for inference of fitness and population growth. American Naturalist 172: E35 – E47. Abstract | PDF | Supplemental Material
Geyer, C.J., S. Wagenius, and R.G. Shaw. 2007. Aster models for life history analysis. Biometrika 94: 415-426. PDF | Supplemental Material
Grad student work
Drake Mullett’s PhD dissertation (2025)
Wyatt Mosiman’s MS thesis (2024)
Amy Waananen’s paper “The fitness effects of outcrossing distance depend on parental flowering phenology in fragmented populations of a tallgrass prairie forb” (with co-authors Ison, Wagenius, and Shaw) was just accepted by New Phytologist–it includes data from parents in exPt01 and progeny in exPt02.
AKA the heritability of flowering time experiment, exPt02 was designed 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, known as 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 2024, we conducted phenology between July 10th and July 19th. During measure, we visited 1,725 positions of the 3,961 positions originally planted. We measured 1,190 living plants, of which 302 were flowering with a total of 402 flowering heads (count excludes vertical developments). In the fall, we harvested 375 heads from exPt02. We observed much lower levels of seed predation by ground squirrels this year than the past few years.
data in cgData repo: ~/cgData/summer2024/exPt02Phenology
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 SQL database
data in echinaceaLab package (hh.2024)
Samples collected:
375 heads harvested
at CBG for processing
Products:
Papers
Pearson, A.E., Z. Zelman, L.A. Hill, M.A. Stevens, E.X. Jackson, M.M.N. Incarnato, R.M. Johnson, S. Wagenius, and J.L. Ison. 2023. Pollinators differ in their contribution to the male fitness of a self-incompatible composite. American Journal of Botany 110(6): e16190. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.16190
Reed, W. J., J. L. Ison, A. Waananen, F. H. Shaw, S. Wagenius, R. G. Shaw. 2022. Genetic variation in reproductive timing in a long-lived herbaceous perennial. American Journal of Botany 109(11) 1861–1874: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.16072
Page, M. L., Ison, J. L., Bewley, A. L., Holsinger, K. M., Kaul, A. D., Koch, K. E., Kolis, K. M., and Wagenius, S. 2019. Pollinator effectiveness in a composite: A specialist bee pollinates more florets but does not move pollen farther than other visitors. American Journal of Botany 106: 1487–1498. PDF
Grad student work
Wyatt Mosiman’s MS thesis (2024)
Amy Waananen’s paper “The fitness effects of outcrossing distance depend on parental flowering phenology in fragmented populations of a tallgrass prairie forb” (with co-authors Ison, Wagenius, and Shaw) was just accepted by New Phytologist–it includes data from parents in exPt01 and progeny in exPt02.
We may have missed some other products.
exPt05:
The only experimental plot at Staffanson Prairie Preserve (SPP), exPt05 was planted to compare progeny of maternal plants from burned and unburned sections of SPP. There were originally 2800 individuals planted, but high mortality made it impractical to visit the plot row-by-row. Now, we 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 2024, we found 17 living plants in exPt05 during flowering/total demo, 8 of which were flowering! We also observed (but did not take data on) additional basal plants within the plot boundaries that appeared to be growing on a 1×1 meter grid. ExPt05 persists!
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 plants in 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. In the summer of 2024, we conducted phenology between July 10th and July 19th. A total of 3,253 seedlings were originally found, but due to gradual mortality we only searched 448 positions in 2024 for plants, and we found evidence of 314 living individuals. We identified 24 flowering plants in with a total of 29 heads, of which we harvested 23.
data in cgData repo: ~/cgData/summer2024/exPt08Phenology
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 SQL database
data in echinaceaLab package (hh.2024)
Samples collected:
23 heads harvested
at CBG for processing
Products:
None… yet!
tplot
tplot is located within the bounds of exPt08. Plants of many species here were rescued from the landfill site. They we transferred as chunks of prairie sod, and individual transplants. This year during flowering and total demo, we encountered 14 living Echinacea plants from which we harvest 12 heads.
Demography data: head counts, rosette counts, etc.
demap input files have been updated with 2024
Spatial location for all flowering and some basal (total demo) plants
demap input files have been updated with 2024
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:
12 heads harvested
at CBG for processing
Products:
None… yet!
Experimental plot management:
Just like other areas of the prairie, our experimental plots need management! Here’s a list of the stewardship activities that we conducted in or for our plots during 2024:
NU MS student Maddie Sadler shows off our sweet clover haul
None of our experimental plots burned in the fall or spring prior to the 2024 growing season
Collected seed to plant in p1, p2, & p8, including:
1) Elise collected Carex brevior, Carex bicknellii, and Carex gravida from several sites and from plants that we established a few years ago near exPt01
2) Liam established Viola pedatifida production tub,
3) We collected a few additional species (including Galium boreale, Solidago missouriensis, Astragalus adsurgens, Dichanthelium leibergii, and Bromus kalmii) we plan to establish via plug in spring 2025
Psst – next year person writing this report; I ran my numbers using the script Dropbox/echProjAdmin/projectStatusReports/psr2024/wmGatherDataForReports2024.R. Maybe this can help you out.
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
