Team echinacea has completed the survey of flowering plants at our largest remnant and restored prairie sites, collecting data on their geospatial locations, number of normal and other heads (gone, duds, vertical developments, even a few mowed), and the tag number for each plant that assigns its identity. We visited 17 large sites, finding nearly 400 flowering plants!
Seeing new corners of Grant and Douglas counties as we drive to the sites is always a fun time, along with all the creature encounters. Pictured are curious cows along the road and one of many katydids, not pictured are a couple corn spiders and a bird’s nest!
After finishing surveying at these large sites and as we were to begin the process of total demo, we ran into a bit of an issue with our flag situation. Since total demo uses 5 flags (pink, blue, orange, red, and yellow), and white and neon flags also had been designated with a role, we were in need of a flag color for plants demoed and not surved. After much discussion and a unanimous group vote, we are happy to unveil our new flag color combo: red + blue. Here’s a chart that explains the situation (see if you can decipher it):
Now the team continues to visit smaller sites, revisiting past flowering plants and collecting demographic information. More updates to come!
Mooing at cows on the way to rileyMama katydid lounging on Collins (our GPS unit)
One of my favorite daily rituals has been the cultivation of the viola tub. Every morning since the beginning of Week 2 of our field season (6-Jul-2026), we have watered a tub of Viola pedatifida (prairie violet) outside the Hjelm house. Before we water, we also collect all ripe viola pods. Viola pods, as we call them, are the fruit of the prairie violet, and turn from pale green to white when ready to harvest. Interestingly, all the fruit we collect come from cleistogamous flowers, meaning that the flowers self-pollinated without ever opening. Prairie violet also produces chasmogamous (more traditionally pollinated, petaled) flowers, but our violets had stopped producing these flowers by the time we arrived in late June.
Yavonne and Aaron tending to the violetsCan you spot the viola pod?
I think that I enjoy the collection of viola pods because it satisfies my innate human urge to gather fruit. However, like everything else that we do here on Team Echinacea, it also has a greater purpose: the Advancement of Science! Last Monday, we designed an experiment to quantify the effect of seed freshness on V. pedatifida seedling establishment. This was our first time designing an experiment as a group, and it took us all afternoon, but it was a fun exercise in planning and group decision-making. Our experimental design is as follows:
Each morning, we collect all ripe viola pods in envelopes, where they explosively release their seeds. At the start of each week, we compile all Viola seeds collected in the previous week and weigh them out into 0.26 gram envelopes (roughly 200 seeds). Half of these will be planted later that day, while the other half are set aside for future planting. An additional five envelopes of “old” seeds, collected in the month before we designed the experiment, are planted at the same time.
We plant the Viola seeds in experimental plot 08, which is located just south of the Hjelm house. This plot is the site of an ongoing experiment (see Aaron’s recent post for details), and contains many Echinacea plants, as well as a variety of other prairie forbs and grasses, making it a good analog for a natural prairie habitat. Each envelope is planted in a unique, randomly determined 2-meter line segment within the plot, and given a single watering can’s worth of water. And then we wait!
What, you may be be asking, are we hoping to discover with this experiment? Our primary goal is to determine whether the age of Viola seeds (measured from the date of pod collection to the date of planting) affects seedling establishment. By planting “fresh” seeds (collected in the previous week) and “old” seeds (collected 2+ weeks ago) at the same time, we can directly compare their success. Previous research suggests that fresher seeds fare better, but whether this holds true in a natural setting has yet to be determined. Since our planting period spans from early August into September, we will also be testing whether time of year affects germination success. And lastly, since this is our first time conducting this sort of experiment, we will see whether our planting method yields results at all. At the very least, we should learn something about how to conduct future Viola experiments.
So there you have it! In September, myself and maybe Wyatt will return to exPt08 to count new V. pedatifida seedlings. I’m excited to see what we find out! I’m less excited to look for thousands of tiny seedlings in a sea of knee-high grass… but I’m sure I’ll enjoy it nonetheless. Stay tuned for updates!
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 offspring of 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. This year we visited 1388 positions, found 758 basal plants, and 261 flowering plants.
We are one month into our 2026 field season! We have done so much and have shared so much, but right now, we are here to recap.
Big Accomplishments
Finished measuring Experimental Plots 2, 7, 8, 9.
Finished extracting seed from last years harvested flowering head.
Hosted visitors form St. Olaf, who helped us measure Experimental Plot 2.
To-Do List
Finish measuring Experimental Plot 1.
Finish surveying and doing demography our large remnant and restoration sites.
While these lists are short they pack some punch. We are over half way with both objectives in our To-Do List–but that still means we have to visit 1000+ potential plants in Experimental Plot 1. But that is enough about the future, lets talk about right now.
What is Demography and Survey, and why do we do it? We take surveys on each flowering plant, each year, at each of our remnant and restoration sites, to record the reproductive health of purple cone flower (Echinaceaangustifolia) plants. Then, we use our fancy GPS units to take the coordinates of the purple cone flowers to help us understand population densities and the survival of the same plant year-over-year. Doing these in tandem helps us add to a data base that is over 30 years old, which in turn helps us understand how populations of fragmented prairie plants change over time.
2026 Team Echinacea; Max R, Yavonne V, Maria H, and Aaron B
We so excited to attend Horticulture Night at WCROC and to see our wonderful lead researcher, Stuart, talk about tallgrass prairie!
This summer, Team Echinacea will be conducting ACE (Always Counting Echinacea, Achene Chaos Extraordinaire, Awesome Collaborative Experience, etc.) on the flowering echinacea heads collected during the 2025 field season to measure pollination success. For each head, the end goal is to get an accurate count of the number of achenes produced and the seed viability. Click here to learn more about echinacea seedheads.
Currently, we are working on both completing the inventory on 2025 collected heads and have begun cleaning (i.e. removing seeds from) high priority heads for three experiments: exPt08, polLim (pollen limited), and aphids. This has provided the team with a much needed indoor task during recent 90° and/or poor air quality afternoons.
So far, we’ve completed inventory for our 1st and 2nd priority bags of echinacea heads and 45% of our 3rd priority bags. For cleaning, we have completed all of polLim, are halfway through exPt08, and have yet to begin aphids. Still a ways to go!
During the cleaning process, we found a little stowaway in one of the heads. Our visiting lepidopterist Michael LaScaleia put our new friend under the microscope and declared him living! Shortly after, we rehomed the little guy. Since his chance of success is so low, no name has been given out of fear of attachment.
Echinacea angustifolia, the titular study species of the Echinacea Project, is the only species of purple coneflower native to Minnesota. But these days, it’s not alone. Multiple other species of Echinacea, including Echinacea pallida, have been introduced to Minnesota, whether as ornamental plants in horticultural settings or as E. angustifolia substitutes in prairie restorations (pallida seed is significantly cheaper than angustifolia seed). One such restoration is located within Hegg Lake Wildlife Management Area, a key study site for the Echinacea Project.
These two species of Echinacea are visibly different, with E. pallida typically having taller flowering heads and longer, skinnier rays than E. angustifolia. E. pallida also has white pollen, while E. angustifolia has yellow pollen. E. angustifolia is found throughout the western half of Minnesota, while E. pallida is native to Iowa, Illinois, and other more southern states. But why does this matter? Non-native plants like E. pallida can be aesthetically pleasing, and may even provide some of the same ecological benefits as their native counterparts. However, non-native plants can also outcompete native plants, and if hybridization occurs, may dilute locally adapted native gene pools. Experimental plots 7 and 9 (ExPt07 and ExPt09) were designed to determine if E. pallida can produce viable hybrid offspring with E. angustifolia, and to monitor the fitness of these hybrids.
One of our jobs this year was to measure all of the surviving plants in ExPt07 and ExPt09. We used different protocols for the two plots, but both went by mostly without a hitch. Compared to ExPt01, these plots had far more flowering plants: 37 flowering individuals were found in ExPt07 (29% of searched positions) and 106 were found in ExPt09 (44% of searched positions). The plants that were flowering also seemed to have, on average, more flowering heads (one plant had 18!). E. pallida generally produces more flowering heads, so seeing this pattern in its hybrid offspring made sense.
The legendary “tri-butt”Stuart, marking the boundaries of ExPt07
While we observed many healthy flowering heads, we also noticed lots of failed attempts at flowering (i.e. vertical developments), unsuccessful buds, and even “mutant” flowers (see the “tri-butt”, above). Whether this is an effect of hybridization or simply a result of the larger sample size of flower heads is unclear. If hybridization does increase the rate of unsuccessful flowering attempts, reducing fitness, it presents an immediate threat to populations of E. angustifolia within pollination distance of E. pallida restorations. Which brings us back to the restoration at Hegg Lake WMA…
After counting heads and identifying unique tag numbers for all of the flowering E. pallida plants in the Hegg Lake restoration, we took matters into our own hands. To prevent genetic swamping of nearby wild E. angustifolia, we beheaded every E. pallida plant in the restoration. Guillotined them. Total decapitation. If it sounds violent, that’s because it was. Robespierre would have been proud of us.
Say what you will about our methods, but Echinacea pallida won’t be showing it’s face at Hegg Lake WMA for a long, long time.
On a smokey, eerie day, a mysterious group of travelers washed ashore the porch of Hjelm–to no ones surprise of course… it was planned! This week Team Echinacea was visited by St. Olaf Colleges Natural Lands Team, and Student Reserachers from St. Olaf and Carleton College! The guest team was happy to help us out with measuring, and the even bigger goal of finishing ExPt02!
On the first day, we were unfortunately smoked out for a few hours, but that just meant that we had more time to get to know each other and help the new team get a hand on the Visors! After our ice breakers and lunch, we headed out to ExPt02 and got the new group accustomed with our surroundings and Echinacea angustifolia. Our day ended with 36 completed rows!
That eve, the visiting team was so gracious to let us cook them dinner–which was an awesome taco bar. We chatted, gossiped, and schemed the evening activities around the dinner table. That night, we swam, kayaked, canoed, and exercised our entomologist brains.
The next, and final day, we hit the day running, finishing ExPt02–all before lunch! With little time after our meal, we visited Staffanson’s Prairie Preserve and wandered to our hearts content. Finally, we wished our friends goodbye, wishing to have another similar gathering soon.
Anna and AriaMaria and LilyTaiga and MaxYavonne and SheaMeg and RuthJayme and AaronMichael and KiranCicada Nymph at Lake Oscar
Overall, we were not sure how well a new team would behave in a new environment doing research on a plant they have little knowledge about, but our expectations were surpassed. The visiting team helped us complete one of our highest priorities for the summer in two days! They were happy and willing to learn in such a short span of time. We estimate that it took ~84 person-hours to complete–which would have taken our 4 person team, approximately 4 days. Again, we thank the St. Olaf Natural Lands Team and the St. Olaf and Carleton Student Researchers for coming to learn about the prairie and helping build this important data set.
Please feel free to read more about Experimental Plot 02 on this website by searching “ExPt02”. Attached is the protocol we used to collect data during during the 2026 field season.
With echinacea identification under our belt, it was time to get acquainted with our new friend: stipa. (Officially Hesperostipa spartea, but we’re on a first-name basis now.) While it blends in better among the other grasses, we learned the tell of its long, wispy, thread-like leaves. And of course, the flowering culms reminiscent of a porcupine with their quill-like awns.
As we visited our new stipa friends in exPt01, we were met by a variety of personalities: large, outgoing stipa who made their presence known from meters away; sneaky characters who attempted to elude our sight; self-care stipa taking a year off from flowering; a couple of rogue stipa who sprung up somewhere unexpected; and of course, those unfound who may have passed away this year. Rest in peace. We also encountered a few creatures along the way, including a large garter snake who, while very friendly, likely did not want to be our long-term sidekick and was thenceforth returned to the cool earth.
Over the 4th of July weekend, I visited Willow River State Park in Wisconsin, where I put my new stipa identification skills to use in the wild and located a stipa plant, pictured below. I was very excited. My hiking-mates smiled and nodded, not quite under the same stipa spell as I. Can you spot the stipa?
After waiting for the improved visibility of a cloudy overcast to conduct one final search through exPt01, the day arrived and we found the final 19 flowering stipa plants still lingering among the grasses, concluding our stipa collection expedition.
Overall, we found 100 flowering plants and 52 basal plants this season. The total culm count was 358 with one plant having 24 culms. Of the 152 plants, 40 were at locations not planned on being searched this year, meaning they may have been marked as missing the past couple years when a plant was still there. Two were rogue plants (new offspring). This was a big year for flowering stipa, as last year there were only 44 flowering plants but 150 basal plants.
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, 14 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.
In the summer of 2026, 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. Of the 25 plants that were identified as alive last year, 24 were successfully found again this year.
Our 2026 field season kicked off on Monday, June 29th! Stuart, Aaron, Maria, Yavonne, and I (Max) met at the Hjelm house in the morning for a brief but comprehensive introduction to the project before heading out in Stuart’s truck to see some of the study sites.
We started at Staffanson Prairie, where Stuart gave us the lay of the land and introduced us to some prairie plants while a swarm of ravenous mosquitos introduced us to some prairie insects. Then an unexpected storm cloud rolled through to introduce us to some prairie weather and we hopped back into Stuart’s truck. The rest of the tour was given through the truck windows, except for a brief stop at Hegg Lake (where I promptly lost my sunglasses).
Stuart, Aaron, Yavonne, and Maria at StaffansonA bee hiding out from the sudden downpour under an Echinacea head
Tuesday was our introduction to experimental plot #1 (exPt01). After a quick demonstration of Visor data entry, we were set free to measure inbreeding experiment 1 (INB1). We would be recording plant status (Basal/Flowering/Can’t Find), counting basal and flowering rosettes, and counting basal leaves. For flowering plants, we would also be twist-tying and recording flowering head information. This task was daunting at first, but we quickly figured out how to identify individual rosettes and sort through a thick layer of duff to count leaves. It helped that we had Aaron, who had already worked with the Echinacea Project for a full summer last year, to answer our questions.
By the end of the day on Thursday, we had finished our measurements in INB1 and INB2. Between the two experiments, we searched 381 positions for plants. We were unable to find 66 plants (we’ll return to these later in the summer to search again), and recorded 310 plants. These numbers are roughly on par with what was expected, given last year’s plant count (329) and a year’s worth of mortality. What surprised us was the frequency of flowering plants: while last year’s team found 92 flowering plants between the two experiments, we encountered only four!
Why this discrepancy? It probably has to do with fire. ExPt01 was burned last year, and we know from the past three decades of research that fire enhances Echinacea angustifolia flower and seed production. Maybe the Echinacea plants in INB1 and INB2 are still rebounding from last year’s flowering event? Maybe the somewhat cool start to the summer delayed flowering phenology? Maybe we made an outrageous counting mistake and missed 80+ flowering plants? All of these explanations are plausible. Only time and future flog posts will reveal the truth. Stay tuned!
