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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
During summer 2024, Team Echinacea continued to collect data on local environmental conditions in order to understand which environmental factors are associated with good habitat for ground-nesting bees. These data complement emergence trapping for our ENRTF funded research on fire’s influence on ground nesting bees habitats. We sampled local environmental conditions near randomly placed “burn and bee points” (BBPTs) in prairie remnants and restorations.
Unlike the 2023 season, we did not collect data on light levels at BBPTs this year. Instead, we measured soil temperature just under the surface using a digital thermometer, along with soil compaction via a penetrometer and litter depth via a meter stick.
Team Echinacea conducted microhabitat assessments for remnant prairies at rotation 4 BBPTs. Over the summer, we took microhabitat assessment measurements at a total of 241 measurments.
Start year: 2024
Location: prairie remnants and restorations in Solem Township, MN
Today we’re closing the lab for a two week break. Team Echinacea has had a fun and productive year. We worked really hard in the lab and it’s time to take a well-deserved vacation.
We made great strides in the lab this past year quantifying annual reproductive fitness of plants from many experiments, mostly Echinacea angustifolia–the narrow-leaved coneflower. We estimate fruit counts and seed counts in hundreds of heads we harvest each year using the ACE protocol: cleaning heads, rechecking heads, scanning fruits, counting fruits, taking random samples, x-raying samples of fruits, and classifying radiographs. We were way behind because the lab was closed during the pandemic. We are catching up. In the past two months we moved all heads harvested from one experiment in Sept 2024 all the way through counting all fruits of each head three times. We have a really great data set.
Thank you to the volunteers who contributed so much to our science and conservation endeavors. Thank you, everybody. Enjoy your vacation–you deserve it. I look forward to working with everyone in 2025!
The Viola propagation tub Team Echinacea installed this past summer was designed with a few goals in mind. First of all, we wanted the tub to produce Viola pedatifida seed that could be used to help seed this important spring native throughout our remnants and experimental plots. We have already seen a pretty good return on our investment from the seed production end, just this fall 10 ripe pods have been harvested each containing between 20 and 30 seeds so this season around 250 seeds have been collected. Additionally, 9 Immature pods were collected before winterizing the plot, so hopefully, some good seeds will come from those as well. The second big goal we wanted to explore with this setup is learning more about small-scale production plots. Several other species have been known to grow well in beds like violets and hopefully, through managing this violet plot, we can learn more about what to expect. Other notable species that may go into future production plots are Ranunculus rhomboideus, Fragaria virginiana, Geum triflorum, and many others. Other good data to collect may come from the survivability of plants directly transferred from remnants and data on germination and survivability of seedlings.
Plot Layout and Plant Data
The plot is laid out below with the corresponding position numbers. The left spreadsheet lays out the ID and source for each plant, and the right contains data on pods collected so far.
Collecting Pods
Throughout the fall, 2 pods were followed from flowering to splitting of the pod. Pictures were taken each day along the entire course each morning before lunch. each pod took 17 days from flower to splitting open. Photos here will be arranged in inverse chronological order starting with pod splitting and then counting backwards. Moving forward we would like to learn what the exact features are of a pod that is ready to harvest. So far these photos have shown 2 likely indicators. 1) the pod starts very green and small and slowly turns a pale cream color and fills out as it matures. 2) The pod stem transitions from a bent gooseneck shape into a more upright position while lightening in color. When a pod is ready the stem tends to be fairly straight or has a soft curvature.
Violet 8
Violet 11
Tucking in for Winter
Oct 24 2024 the violets seed production was slowing down and with winter weather on its way it was decided that we should tuck the violets in and cover them. Firstly litter and any seeds visible on the surface of the tub. Next, a 4-inch mulch of Straw cut from P1 was applied across the entire surface of the tub, being sure to cover all green stems from the violas. Lastly, a Sheet of hardware cloth was cut to the length of the tub to prevent the intrusion of digging animals. This sheet was bent around the edges of the tub and then weighed down by several stones. Afterwards, the violas should be safe until next summer.
Spring 2025
A few things will definitely be on the docket for next spring. First off after the snow recedes the wire and mulch should be removed as soon as possible to ensure the soil warms and the volets get enough sunlight. As soon as the soil is removed an inch or so of compost should be applied across the entire bed. Once the violets emerge then the mulch can be reapplied to prevent weed development. Flowers should develop quickly and the job of picking ripe pods will almost certainly last all summer.
Another batch we’re prioritizing in the lab is the pollinator observation (or polOb) experiment. The goal of this experiment is to learn more about the effects of fire on native bees and their behaviors. We spent time this summer observing Echinacea at 10 paired sites, half of which burned before the 2024 growing season. We then harvested heads from our observation plots for processing in the lab. Because we’re specifically interested in learning about pollination, heads in this group will be streamlined all the way through to the classifying steps to learn about seed set, and we are less concerned about counting. Here’s our progress so far:
We are roughly a third of the way through rechecking. We’ll be pausing work briefly on this batch to get the exPt01 2024 experiment rechecked and uploaded for counting ASAP
NOTE: 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 have a few experiments that we’re prioritizing here in the lab. We want to get the heads in these experiments through our ACE process as quickly as possible! One of these experiments is known by many names: q1, qGen, qGen1, big batch, etc. The experiment in question was planted in experimental plot 1 in 2003 and was designed to investigate the heritability of fitness using a quantitative genetics approach. We’re looking to redo the analysis we have on this experiment with several new years of data, including 2024!
This year, very few plants in exPt01 flowered, so all experiments in that plot were lumped into one for ACE processing. I booted up Alex’s ACE progress visualization machine to see what our progress on this batch looks like so far! We only need to get this batch through counting, so we can skip the randomizing/xray/classifying steps.
Finished with cleaning! Rechecking (here cleanQC) is up next.
Hi everyone! My name is Ning and I currently am a rising Junior at Alexandria Area High School. I expect to graduate in 2026. After high school, I plan on attending a 4-year college or university. My pronouns are she/her.
I want to study evolution of echinacea plants and hybrid plant species and the effect of bees on a site of land.
I am from Alexandria, Minnesota.
In my spare time I like to be active such as swimming, going on walks, or lifting. I also like being inside while watching a good tv show or reading a good book.
[NOTE: Wyatt found this post in the flog drafts and is publishing now. Ning was a member of our summer 2024 team!]
The aphid addition and exclusion experiment was started in 2011 by Katherine Muller. The original experiment included 100 plants selected from exPt01 that were each assigned to have aphids either added or excluded across multiple years. The intention is to assess the impact of the specialist herbivore Aphis echinaceae on Echinacea fitness.
In 2024, 41 of the original 100 plants were alive, two of which flowered. However, we did not see any aphids anywhere while measuring exPt01. We have not conducted fieldwork for this experiment since 2022, when team members Emma Reineke and Kennedy Porter were in charge of the experiment and did not find any aphids in exPt01, so they introduced a new population of Aphid echinaeceae into the plot. Learn more in the 2022 summer aphid update.
Aphids Wyatt Mosiman saw in exPt02 this summer. Wrong plot, aphids!
Plant survival and measurements were recorded as part of our annual surveys in P1 and eventually will be found in our SQL database.
Samples collected:
2 heads from plants included in this experiment are at the Chicago Botanic Garden awaiting processing: AD-1728 and AZ-1744 in the exPt01 2024 batch
Products:
Andy Hoyt’s poster presented at the Fall 2018 Research Symposium at Carleton College
2016 paper by Katherine Muller and Stuart Wagenius on aphids and foliar herbivory damage on Echinacea
2015 paper by Ruth Shaw and Stuart Wagenius on fitness and demographic consequences of aphid loads
You can read more about the aphid addition and exclusion experiment, as well as links to prior flog entries mentioning the experiment, on the background page for this experiment.
Reproduction in plants can be limited by access to pollen and resources. We previously found that Echinacea plants in the remnants are pollen limited, meaning that if they had access to more pollen, they would produce more seeds. However, the long-term effects of pollen limitation are unknown. Do plants that are super pollen saturated and have high amounts of pollen have a higher lifetime fitness than plants that are pollen limited? Also, we know that the plants in the remnants are pollen limited, but are the plants in the common garden environment also pollen limited? To answer these questions and more, 13 years ago Gretel randomly selected 39 plants from p1; half of these plants were randomly assigned to the pollen addition group, and the others were assigned to pollen exclusion. Every year, plants in the pollen exclusion have their heads bagged and they are not pollinated, while we hand cross every style in the pollen addition group. An additional 53 plants in p1 were selected to be part of a control group where pollen was neither added nor excluded.
In the summer of 2024, NONE of the original 39 addition/exclusion plants were flowering. If any had been flowering, the exclusion treatment plants would be covered with exclusion bags to prevent pollination, and the addition plants would be hand-pollinated multiple times throughout the summer. One plant in the control group produced a single flowering head.
Collaborator and NDSU postdoc Grace Hirzel places pollinator exclusions bags on Echinacea heads in the remnants. If any of the plants in the polLim experiment from the non-control group had flowered this year, it would’ve looked like this!
You can find more information about the pollen addition and exclusion experiment and links to previous flog posts regarding this experiment at the background page for the experiment.