Categories

2022 Update: Liatris fire and flowering

Beginning in summer 2021, we have been studying fire effects on Liatris aspera across patches of remnant prairie in Solem Township, MN. Six of these remnants burned in spring of 2021, and five remnants burned in spring 2022. During 2022, we expanded our efforts and collected data at five additional (smaller sites). The (absurdly) high density of flowering Liatris during summer 2022 led us to establish 1 meter wide, randomly placed transects in many sites. Despite our efforts and stated goal of not mapping as many Liatris as we did in summer 2021 (when we mapped 2400+ flowering plants across 23 remnant patches), we managed to overshoot our 2021 counts by at least 33%. Yes, we mapped well over 3200 flowering Liatris during summer 2022 with but a single functioning GPS… We harvested seed from 291 randomly selected Liatris.

  • Start year: 2021
  • Location: 28 patches of remnant prairie in and around Solem Township, MN
  • Overlaps with: Foolishness and shenanigans
  • Data collected: Demographic and spatial data housed in the remla Bitbucket repo
  • Samples or specimens collected: Harvested seed heads have been dried and are located in Jared’s office. These need to be inventoried, cleaned, randomized, scored for seed predation, X-rayed, and classified.
  • Products: Stay tuned!

You can read more about the Liatris fire and flowering project, as well as links to prior flog entries about this experiment, on the background page for this experiment.

2022 Update: Flowering phenology in remnants

In 2022, we collected data on the timing of flowering for 1373 flowering plants (2291 flowering heads) in 23 remnant patches. We identify each plant with a numbered tag affixed to the base and give each head a colored twist tie, so that each head has a unique tag/twist-tie combination, or “head ID”, under which we store all phenology data. We monitor the flowering status of all flowering plants in the remnants, visiting at least once every three days (usually every two days) until all heads are done flowering to obtain start and end dates of flowering. In most remnants, we monitor the phenology of all flowering Echinacea. In 2022, record high flowering led us to sub-sample from select sites (namely alf, nwlf, lfe, lfw, lce, and lcw) and exclude some sites (e.g., ri, aa, and a large chunk of alf).

Linking this detailed phenology data with information about seed production will help us understand how the timing of reproduction influences pollination and reproductive fitness. Additionally, we are excited to investigate whether fire synchronizes flowering in remnant populations. Eight of the populations in which we collected phenology data were burned during spring 2022.

  • Start year: 1996
  • Location: Roadsides, railroad rights of way, and nature preserves in and around Solem Township, MN
  • Overlaps with: Reproductive fitness in remnants
  • Data collected: We managed the data in the R project ‘aiisummer2022′ and will add the records to the database of previous years’ remnant phenology records. The 2022 phenology data set needs to be cleaned and prepared for integration with phenology data from previous years and is still located in the aiisummer2022 repo.
  • Products: Stay tuned!

You can read more about the Flowering phenology in remnants project, as well as links to prior flog entries about this experiment, on the background page for this experiment.

2022 Update: Lilium fire and flowering

After a foolhardy effort to single-handedly census every flowering Lilium philadelphicum across Solem Township in 2021 and threatening the global supply of orange pin flags in the process, Jared came to his senses and focused on Echinacea in summer 2022… oh who are we kidding, Jared mapped a bunch of lilies in summer 2022. Rather than census flowering plants, Jared established seven 60 x 40 meter plots across sites with varying burn histories and mapped all flowering plants within those study plots (N = 361 flowering individuals). Pods were harvested from 23 plants.

Echinacea who?
  • Start year: 2021
  • Location: Remnant patches of prairie in and around Solem Township, MN
  • Overlaps with: Sleep
  • Data collected: Spatial and demographic data housed in the remlp Bitbucket repository
  • Samples or specimens collected: Pods/seed collected during summer 2022 currently reside in Jared’s office. These seeds need to be cleaned, counted, and scored for seed set.
  • Products: Stay tuned!

You can read more about the Lilium fire and flowering project, as well as links to prior flog entries about this experiment, on the background page for this experiment.

2022 Update: Smoke experiment

Prescribed burns increase the flowering rates of Echinacea angustifolia, but what aspect of fire induces flowering? Researchers have proposed many factors, including light, heat, nutrients, decreased competition, and smoke. Applications of liquid smoke increase germination rates in many plant species, but very few studies have tested the impacts of smoke on flowering. Our smoke experiment investigates whether liquid smoke will increase flowering rates of E. angustifolia. Many members of Team Echinacea have proposed this experiment in previous years, most recently Amy and Scott in 2019. However, this is the first year of installing the experiment in the field.

Applying the smoke treatments to a flowering Echinacea!

On July 29th, Alex and I visited the Hutchings property and recorded demographic data on 100 Echinacea plants that Scott and Amy had mapped in 2019. After further discussing methods and sample size with Jared and Stuart, we revisited the Hutching’s property to find additional plants. On September 20th and 22nd, Alex, Manogya, and I mapped and recorded demographic data for 205 more plants using the GPS.

We applied the first half of the smoke treatments on October 27th and 28th, and you can read more about that trip here. We applied liquid smoke to 110 plants, exactly half basal plants and half flowering plants for a balanced experiment. We used 11 different concentrations of smoke in our applications. We plan on conducting the second half of the experiment with an additional 110 plants in the spring.

  • Start year: 2022
  • Location: Hutchings’ property north of Landfill
  • Overlaps with: Fire and seedling fitness in remnants
  • Data collected: Methods, datasheets, and treatment groups can be found in Dropbox at ~/dropbox/burnRems/smokeExPt1. All smoke demographic data collected in summer of 2022 can be found in the aiisummer2022 repo at ~/aiisummer2022/smokeExpt/smokeExpt2022DemoData.csv. This includes coordinates, flowering status, rosette count, and head count for 305 plants. Demographic data will be collected on the plants once they flower in the summer of 2023. The stake file for smoke plants can be found in Dropbox at ~Dropbox\geospatialDataBackup2022\stakeFiles2022\stakeSmokePlants.csv
  • Samples or specimens collected: None at the moment
  • Products: None…yet!

Click here to read more about the smoke experiment!

2022 Update: Hesperostipa fire and flowering

During summer 2021, we began collecting data in remnant patches of prairie to quantify fire effects on the reproduction of Porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea). In summer 2022, we decided against collecting further data. A few very late spring burns that seemed to affect Hesperostipa, our smaller than expected summer crew, and a long list of projects led us to conclude it would be better to prioritize other projects.

  • Start year: 2021
  • Location: Remnant patches of prairie in and around Solem Township, MN
  • Overlaps with: Random points in remnants
  • Data collected: None
  • Samples or specimens collected: None
  • Products: None

You can read more about the Fire and seedling fitness in remnants experiment, as well as links to prior flog entries about this experiment, on the background page for this experiment.

2022 Update: Nectar experiment

The goal of this research is to figure out a method and protocol to collect nectar from prairie plants. Once a collection method and protocol have been designed, the nectar can be analyzed for quality and quantity. We plan to compare prairie plants pre- and post-burn to investigate whether nutritional resources for pollinating insects differ before and after a burn. If there are differences, we can make recommendations about conducting burns and identify plants to use in restorations and reclamations that will provide the nutrients for pollinators.

Here’s a draft protocol and notes from summer activities….

Pre-collection:

  • Select heads ahead of time that will be flowering, preferably on day two of the male flowering stage, on the nectar collection day. Day two tends to have the most average anthers present on a head. Anthers tend to have more nectar than the styles, so the anthers will be our targeted area of collection. On the selected heads, place the crowns and pollinator exclusion bags over the heads. If the head has a twist tie for identification, use the same color twist tie on the bag.  
  • Label the microfuge tube in ascending order prior to going into the field. Place a large binder clip on the last numbered tube and leave it in the supply so the next person to number knows where to start. Clearly number the tubes with a fine tip or medium tip permanent marker.

Nectar collection procedure:

  • Select the plants to sample from during the course of the day, I used seven.
  • If necessary, record the row, position, twist tie color, estimated male flowering day, and time of collection for the selected head to sample. If in a remnant, record the location using the GPS.
  • Prepare the microcap(s) and leave it in an empty microcap tube in the styrofoam holder in the field collection box so you are ready to collect the sample. 
  • Remove the pollinator exclusion bag from the selected head.
  • On the same head, select the anthers that are the most recently presented to sample from.
  • Use a Q-tip to remove the pollen from the selected anther.
  • If the pollen is still in the way, use a Q-tip or end of a toothpick to move the anther out of the way.
  • Insert the microcap tube into the anther floret. Insert the microcap down into the floret until there is light resistance when you reach the base of the floret. 
  • Twist or rotate the microcap five times. Remove the microcap. 
  • Carefully remove the microcap.
  • Record the amount of nectar collected in the microcap in millimeters (mm). It is helpful to hold the microcap up to the sun to see the refraction of light from the nectar to see the amount collected. You can use the magnifying glasses to read the amount of nectar in mm on the ruler.
  • Place the entire microcap with the collected nectar sample into a numbered microfuge tube and record the number of the microfuge tube.
  • Securely close the top of the microfuge tube and place it into the cooler or pouch with the ice packs. 
  • Replace the pollinator exclusion bag.
  • Label the flag marking the plant with the row and position for future reference and time efficiency. Once this task is completed, it will not need to be done for the same plants in the future. 
  • Repeat steps 2-15 for the next plant.
  • Once the seventh head has been completed, head back to the first plant to repeat the entire collection procedure. This should take about 50-60 minutes to collect from 7 plants. 
  • Upon returning to the Hjelm House, place the collected samples in the collected samples box, which then is stored in the refrigerator.

Field supply checklist:

  • Nitrile gloves
  • Microfuge tubes (tall enough to put the microcap inside and close the cap)
  • Microcaps
  • Drummond Scientific Microcap 1-000-0033 Microliter Pipets, 3.33µL Capacity (Pack of 100) 0.34 mm or 0.0133 inch diameter. 
  • Extra twist ties
  • Extra pollinator exclusion bags
  • Extra crowns
  • Flag bag with flags of the designated color 
  • Permanent marker
  • Pen
  • Magnifying glass glasses with 3.5 – 5 X magnification
  • Two ten gallon buckets (one for sitting and one to set supplies on top)
  • Cooler with ice packs (ice packs can also be held in our pouch instead of the cooler)
  • Ruler with mm markings 
  • Water and sunscreen 
  • Clipboard with the data sheet
  • Rubber band to hold the data sheet onto the clipboard 
  • Duct tape paint holder filled with paint and toothpick
  • Q-tip bundle
  • Wooden toothpick bundle 
  • Field collection box to hold small supplies 
  • Kestrel weather unit 
  • Measuring tape or meter stick

Field notes:

  • This data was collected in experimental plot 1 from 7/18/2022 through 7/28/2022.
  • Sometimes the magnifying glasses directed sunlight to a focal point and it became quite warm (similar to killing an ant with a magnifying glass scenario).
  • I found it easiest to put the supplies inside the buckets while traveling to the site because it was a lot to carry. 
  • I liked the magnifying glasses because I could adjust the lens up and down while going back and forth from the head to the supplies. I recommend wearing a bandana in between your head and the glasses for comfort, sweat, and keeping away long hair.
  • I recommended using the 3 uL capacity microcaps. They fit best in the floret and collected the most nectar.
  • I used a piece of Styrofoam to hold the microfuge tubes that contained the various sizes of microcaps, toothpick, pollen Q-tip, and the next empty numbered tube for the nectar. 
  • Sometimes the microcap got bubbles in the tube, so I only counted the amount of liquid I saw. It seemed on occasion that some of the nectar went out of the tube, so it may be best to record the amount after sampling each floret. *A recommendation for next time: Place your finger over the end of the microcap to try and prevent liquid from being removed. 
  • The pollinator exclusion bag being placed prior to collection increased the amount of nectar collected. Note, on 7/25, I sampled some heads that did not have pollinator exclusion bags prior to sampling and found that they had about the same amount of nectar as ones that had the bags at that same time of day. This will need further investigation. I also sampled from each of the most recently presented anthers that day to see if I would get more per head in one sampling rather than multiple times a day.  I got more nectar per head, but I also sampled more anthers on this day. The data table below shows the average amount of nectar in mm per floret for each day of sampling. Note that the day I sampled the most florets in the afternoon, 7/25, has the least amount of nectar per floret.  This day was also cloudy and some of the heads included in the data didn’t have pollinator exclusion bags prior to collection. 
7/180.406 mm
7/200.399 mm
7/210.448 mm
7/250.213 mm
Pollinator Exclusion Bag vs. No Pollinator Exclusion Bag

As of 7/25, the time frame of 2:30 and 3:00 pm has had the highest average amount of nectar collected.  The mornings and cloudy days have produced the least amount of nectar. After the first three days of collection, we noted that the mornings had less nectar, so I focused on mid mornings and the afternoons for the following days. 

Time of day vs. mm of nectar collected
  • Start year: 2022
  • Location: Experimental plot 1
  • Overlaps with: NA
  • Data collected: Britney has a datasheet from summer 2022 that lists all samples and the conditions associated with their collection
  • Samples or specimens collected: All nectar samples were delivered to Dr. Rahul Roy at St. Catherine’s University on November 10th
  • Products: Stay tuned!

You can read more about the nectar experiment and find links to prior flog entries about this experiment here.

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). The Trust Fund is a permanent fund constitutionally established by the citizens of Minnesota to assist in the protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. Currently 40% of net Minnesota State Lottery proceeds are dedicated to growing the Trust Fund and ensuring future benefits for Minnesota’s environment and natural resources.

2022 Update: Common garden experiments

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 (inb1inb2), and assessing quantitative genetic variation (qgen1). There are also a number of smaller experiments in it, including fitness of Hesperostipa sparteaaphid 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, 92 were 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.

Krusmarks after dark: Seed addition update

Last week, we drove to MN in the middle of the week for our last chance for field work before the snow. Jared and Wyatt stayed behind to take care of the Lake Forest College students who are doing a project in the lab on Wednesdays. Our goal in MN was to plant seeds for the seed addition project, an experiment measuring the effects of prescribed fire on seedling germination and emergence in Echinacea.

For the study, we established 4-meter-long transects at 36 sites across the Echinacea Project study area, for a total of 84 transects. Each transect is divided into 4 segments, and this fall, we planted one of those meter-long segments with either 1 or 2 packets containing 50 seeds each. Since we know how many seeds we planted (we know exactly how many because Wyatt x-rayed them!), we can record how many seedlings emerge in the spring and calculate accurate germination rates.

Our goal on Wednesday was to plant all 84 transects before sunset at 4:50 pm. November 9th, 2022 dawned cold and rainy. Stuart, Lindsey, and I started the day at Tower and Nice Island to do a practice run together. We soon learned that the drizzle would make planting seeds difficult. The achenes stuck to everything: the envelope, the grass, the meterstick, and our fingers when we tried to remove the achenes from the meterstick. Nevertheless, we persisted. After sprinkling seeds along each transect, we carefully checked meterstick to make sure there were no renegade achenes. We finished 59 transects in the morning and regrouped to put on dry clothes and feast on Jean’s delicious hummus for lunch. I greatly regretted that I had no rain pants.

After lunch, the sky was still overcast, but the rain stopped, which made it much easier to sprinkle seeds. This year, we added several new locations, and we needed the GPS to map them out: Torgeson (east and west), Hutchings (east and west), Fern, and Bengston. Unfortunately, Taylor the GPS hadn’t been used since the end of September, so I waited for three excruciatingly slow Windows updates while Lindsey and Stuart headed out to plant more transects. Finally, at 2 pm, Taylor finally finished updating, and we met at Hutchings to install the new transects. At Hutchings East, both of the initial transect locations were in dips between hills, so we moved them both 20 m east. Next, at Hutchings West, one transect started on a rock, so we moved the transect slightly north. This was not an auspicious start to the GPS portion of the afternoon, and we had only 2 hours of light left.

Lindsey and I raced off to Torgeson, the most distant site. I used the GPS to flag the transects. Lindsey followed with nails and planted the seeds. The transects at Torgeson were on two hills separated by a pond. To reach the second hill, I tried to cut across a patch of mud. It looked stable, but when I took my second step, I felt my boot sink deep into the slurping mud. When I tried to pull my foot out, it wouldn’t budge. I nearly toppled over, but I managed to escape with both boots and the GPS unharmed.

Fortunately, the other transects were uneventful. Lindsey and I left Bengston, our second-to-last site, at 4:50 pm, right as the sun was setting. The clouds had trapped a bit of light, so Stuart jumped in the truck, and we headed to our final site: Krusmarks. We needed a flashlight for last two transects, but we finished planting them all! Exhausted, we returned to Hjelm and discovered that Jean had prepared a fabulous dinner: bean soup, homemade bread, pumpkin custard, roasted cinnamon apples, and piping hot gingerbread. It was the best meal I’ve ever eaten.

Smoke Experiment Updates

Last Thursday, a group of us returned to Kensington with the hopes of a successful prescribed burn. While we were up there, Alex and I also implemented the beginning of the smoke experiment. I believe this is the first flog entry solely about the smoke experiment this year, so I will give you a little rundown of what it entails!

We know that Echinacea flowering rates increase after fire, and we also know that smoke can stimulate plant germination. Smoke has been found to increase flowering rates in a few select species (Cyrtanthus ventricosus and Watsonia fourcadei). But, we don’t know if smoke increases flowering rates for Echinacea! We also are unsure what mechanism of fire (increased light, added nutrients, chemicals in smoke) increases flowering in Echinacea. Therefore, we are applying liquid smoke treatments to both basal and flowering Echinacea plants during the fall of 2022 and measuring their reproductive output during the summer of 2023.

Our smoke operation began this summer, by mapping out ~ 300 plants on the Hutchings’ property just north of the landfill. We recorded if the plant was flowering, number of heads and number of rosettes and marked the plant with a flag and a unique three-digit identifier. Throughout the summer, there were many deliberations about the methods and for this pilot study. Before leaving for Minnesota, Alex and I cleared the shelves of distilled water containers from the local Woodman’s, gathered measuring equipment from two other fellow CBG labs (thank you!) and packed up the back of the Silverado. Finally, we were ready to smoke.

We had two roles during our smoke implementation, one being a “mixer”. This person would measure an accurate ratio of smoke to water to reach our desired concentrations. We have 11 smoke concentrations in our experiment: 40%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2.5%, 1.25%, 0.625%, 0.31%, 0.16%, 0.078% and no smoke. For each plant, we are applying approximately 1 liter of liquid. This became tricky in the field, as the back of our truck was not always level surface and the wind kept trying to steal our graduated cylinders!

The second role was being the “pourer.” Gretel and Jared came out to help us pour, which was greatly appreciated! The pourer would locate the plant that received the desired treatment and pour the liter of liquid on and around the plant within a half meter diameter.

During our trip, we were able to apply smoke treatments to 110 Echinacea plants! We hope to return to Minnesota once more this year to apply another 110 treatments, this time with improved methods and efficiency. On our first day back in Illinois, Alex and I pre-filled ~60 jugs with our desired concentrations, so we are ready to pour once we return. The next question is, how long will our hands smell like Wright’s Hickory?

Stay tuned for more smoke-related updates in the future!

CG Harvest 2022 Summary

Harvesting Echinacea heads in the common garden experiments this fall was quite the adventure! During the last week in June, the crew got a taste of harvesting when decapitating non-native Echinacea pallida at Hegg before they could produce seeds. Lobbing off Echinacea heads with wild abandon was quite the thrill after spending a month conscientiously navigating the common gardens and measuring plants with care. In total, we cut approximately 824 heads off of 224 flowering pallida plants.

The field crew started harvesting heads to be cleaned in exPt02 on August 10th. Our final day of harvesting in exPt02 was September 12th, and during that month we harvested exactly 480 Echinacea heads. Our bountiful harvest in exPt02 was thwarted by the local population of thirteen-lined ground squirrels. Many of this summer’s field team recounts witnessing these rodents ruthlessly rip the head off an Echinacea, look them straight in the eye, and run away. In the end, our 480 heads accounted for only 41% of the heads we planned on harvesting prior to the squirrel shenanigans.

We also harvested heads in some sites with fewer flowering Echinacea. In exPt08, we harvested 8 heads, and there were three flowering plants in t-plot that may have succumbed to the ground squirrels before we could harvest them. In exPt07 and exPt09, we harvested a combined total of 130 heads. The mysterious exPt05, which required a GPS to be found at Staffanson Prairie, had 4 flowering plants with 2 heads that should’ve been harvested, but didn’t (oops!).

The harvest of our largest experimental plot, exPt01, began on Aug 30th. The exPt01 madness did not end until our final four heads were harvested on October 10th by Gretel and Stuart, which is the latest harvest recorded in Echinacea Project history! The grand total for number of heads harvested in exPt01 was a whopping 1,494 heads.

Between all of our common garden experiments, we harvested a total of 2,112 heads!