Team Echinacea has begun the annual census of Echinacea plants. Each year we census all flowering plants at over 30 prairie sites. Each plant gets a digital census record, a flag, and a tag. Most plants already have a tag, so we don’t give them a new one. But some have lost their tag or are flowering for the first time, so they need a new tag. New tags this year are numbered starting at 30,001. Plants get neon flags and we will come back and survey them so we can make a map of the location of every plant. Once they get surveyed, we replace the neon flag. All of these efforts help build a long-term dataset about the survival and reproduction of these very long-lived plants. These plants face many challenges living in small prairie patches, but they are tough.
Below is a summary of the number of census records taken so far at nine sites
site rawSite demo.id
1 other 1
2 alf around landfill 11
3 cg common garden 23
4 eelr east elk lake road 19
5 lfe landfill east 118
6 lfw landfill west 99
7 lce loeffler corner east 78
8 lcw loeffler corner west 81
9 rrxx railroad crossing 36
Amy Waananen’s just had a paper published in New Phytologist. She reports how the difference in flowering time of a plant’s two parents influences the plant’s fitness. Many researchers have investigated how differences in the location of parents (close or far) influences progeny fitness. Few, if any, have investigated how differences in flowering time affects progeny fitness.
Differences in flowering time are not as straightforward as differences in location. In space, parents can be far or close and we use distance to measure it. To state the obvious, negative distances do not makes sense. In time, parents can be far (asynchronous) or near (synchronous). But maternal plants can be earlier or later than paternal plants. This aspect of distance in time is fundamentally different than distance in space. Amy used positive and negative values to indicate which parent flowered earlier. Remarkably, this perspective really mattered to the fitness of progeny. Wow!
Amy’s discovery is really cool, it’s a surprise, and it’s a useful contribution to basic science. Amy also suggested some non-intuitive management strategies that can help promote plant fitness and resilience of populations in the face of changing environments.
Here’s the citation:
Waananen, A., Ison, J.L., Wagenius, S. and Shaw, R.G. 2025. The fitness effects of outcrossing distance depend on parental flowering phenology in fragmented populations of a tallgrass prairie forb. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.70240
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.
Team Echinacea has successfully completed some spring prescribed burns! Our mighty team of seven (Stuart, Gretel, Jared, Wyatt, Fannie, Brad, and I) took to Minnesota this past week to conduct a handful of spring prescribed burns. We set off bright and early on Sunday morning at around 9am to make the 9 hour drive from Chicago Botanic Garden to our study sites in Minnesota. Weather in Minnesota on Monday and Tuesday allowed us to get multiple different sites done including the coveted P1 and P8 experimental plots. The sun was shining, the sky was clear, humidity was low, the wind was blowing just enough, and the grass was very dry making it a perfect day. The days were long and the temperatures were high (in the 80’s), but we polished off both days with some great food and great conversations which are essential to any good burn trip to keep up morale.
Experimental plot p1 during the burn (left) and after the burn (right)
Fannie using the drip torch for the first time (left) and Jared lecturing Blue on the importance of fire safety (right)
Not only did we get some good burns in, but we were able to visit Runestone County Park on Tuesday morning. We used this trip to see the current restoration work being done at the park, and it allowed us to find spots for potential signs discussing different topics such as why prescribed fire matters, the history of prairies, and more. We also used our time in MN to get many pictures and videos to be used for dissemination projects discussing why prescribed fire is important for native pollinators.
Of course it wouldn’t be a complete trip to Minnesota without a stop at Staffanson Prairie Preserve.
This is part of our project “How Do Prescribed Fires Affect Native Prairie Bees?”
Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
Ian Roberts presented his thesis research “Impacts of Prescribed Fire and Land Use History on Ground Nesting Bees” at the Chicago Botanic Garden on April 30th. The presentation was well received by those attendees in the room and those who attended via zoom. After the public presentation, Ian successfully defend his Masters thesis for the program in Plant Biology and Conservation at NU. Congratulations, Ian!
Ian’s research advances our understanding of ground nesting bees, prescribed fires, and nesting habitat for bees in remnant and restored tallgrass prairie. Stay tuned for a publication and recommendations for land managers!
This is part of our project “How Do Prescribed Fires Affect Native Prairie Bees?”
Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
Jared gave a presentation at the Chicago Plant Science Symposium on April 19th about our big prescribed fire experiment. He focused this talk on fire effects on plant reproduction & demography.
This is part of our project “How Do Prescribed Fires Affect Native Prairie Bees?”
Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
Emma presented results of her honor’s project at the poster symposium on April 15th at the U of MN. Emma assessed concentrations of several types of sugar in nectar collected from tiny florets of Echinacea plants. We are learning how prescribed fire affects sugars in nectar because nectar is an important food for pollinators, like bees. Emma worked in the lab of Dr. Rahul Roi at St Catherine University and was advised by Dr. Ruth Shaw at University of Minnesota. We are so proud of Emma!
Emma presenting her poster with Rahul & Ruth.
This is part of our project “How Do Prescribed Fires Affect Native Prairie Bees?”
Funding for this project was provided by the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).
We’re interested in investigating what resources are available to Echinacea visitors and learning more about the pollen and nectar Echinacea produces. We hope to learn if the nutritional resources available differ before and after burns. In 2022, Britney House developed methods for collecting nectar from Echinacea using microcapillary tubes. Read more about her methods here.
During the summer of 2024, the team collected pollen and nectar samples from Echinacea angustifolia at 12 sites in and around Solem Township, MN. We searched for and shot the ~10 plants (or, if few were available, as many as we could find) at each site that were closest to a random point. We then bagged up to five of the heads with pollinator exclusion bags for those 10 plants. Throughout the duration of their flowering, we collected pollen from all bagged plants and nectar from five of them per site.
We removed bags from pollen/nectar plants and backup plants when they were done flowering, and we collected until a a limit was set of a cumulative 10mm of nectar from each plant. This year we also collected immature florets from each bagged head at the start of sampling.
Following some experimentation, we conducted nectar collection only in the afternoons, while pollen collection could be done any time of day. In total, we collected vials of pollen, nectar, and vials containing immature florets from 60 plants. Pollen and nectar tubes were given to Rahul Roy at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, who will be doing pollen and nectar analysis. Tubes containing immature florets were sent with Grace Hirzel at North Dakota State University in Fargo, ND for pollen grain count and size analysis.
Data entry for collection datasheets is ongoing. Pollen data entry is started and nectar data is a little over half done with the help of Emma Reineke. Emma will also be using part of this dataset for her senior thesis project at the University of Minnesota.
Scans can be found at: Dropbox/teamEchinacea2024/z.pollenNectarDataEntry/scans.
Start year: 2024
Location: Various prairie remnants around Solem Township, MN
Team members involved with this project: Summer team 2024, Rahul Roy (St. Kate’s), Emma Reineke (University of Minnesota), Jarrad Pasifrika and Grace Hirzel (North Dakota State University)
Products: pending
Funding: ENRTF
Grace Hirzel taking off a pollen excluder bag on an Echinacea angustifolia plant.
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.
During the summer of 2024, Team Echinacea completed the second year of its ENRTF funded project to better understand how prescribed fire influences ground nesting bee habitat, food resources, and diversity. Understanding the associations between land management methods and ground nesting bees is essential for providing reccomendations to policymakers and practitioners interested in native bee conservation.
We surveyed solitary bee diversity and nesting habitat before and after prescribed fires in a subset of 30 prairie remnants and 15 prairie restorations to determine how prescribed fire affects solitary bee nesting habitat and abundance. We used emergence traps to sample the community of solitary ground nesting bees. This was complemented by detailed measures of soil and litter to characterize how prescribed burning influences the nesting habitat (read more here).
2024 REU student Zach Zarling deploys an emergence trap at a site near Hoffman, Minnesota
We deployed emergence traps at our random “burn and bee points”(BBPTs) in prairie remnants and restorations from early June to mid September. Our deployments spanned three rotations (4-6) of BBPTs and we put out a total of ~1,159 emergence traps. On reccomendation from Dr. Alex Harmon-Threatt, we also performed 10 minute “pollard walks” on deployment to estimate the number of foraging bees at each site. These foraging numbers will be compared to nesting incidence as part of Ian Roberts’ thesis project.
As of December 21st, specimens caught in this year’s deployments have been pinned, labeled, and transported from Chicago Botanic Garden to the University of Minnesota, where Zach Portman, a bee taxonomist, will identify them. Team Echinacea also collected lots of non-bee bycatch while processing specimens collected in the traps: including millipedes, flies, and even a prairie skink! To avoid wasting these specimens, we plan to categorize this bycatch into broad taxonomic groups (like Dipterans, Orthopterans, etc) and examine potential associations between our experimental treatments and general arthropod diversity across our study sites.
Pinned specimen from 2024’s emergence trapping, likely an Agapostemon virescens.
While working on pinning and processing specimens, Ian Roberts produced a poster containing analyses from the 2023 emergence trapping data to present at Entomology 2024. The poster can be viewed here. Future data analyses will feature data from both sampling years, as well as microhabitat measurments and and diversity indices.
Start year: 2023
Location: prairie remnants and restorations in Solem Township, MN.
Data collected: insect samples, counts of foraging bees
Samples or specimens collected: Pinned bees are currently being identified at University of Minnesota. Bycatch is in the freezer at Chicago Botanic Garden.
Products: poster presented at Entomology 2024 (see above for link)
