Survey of Drought and Root Morphology across Southern Wisconsin Prairies

by The Prairie Enthusiasts | Sep 9, 2026 | Identification & Education

Survey of Drought and Root Morphology Across Southern Wisconsin Prairies

Article by Lucille J. Wineberg, Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Senior Thesis, Dr. Sara Hotchkiss and Christian Villanueva, May 6, 2026

As early as 1830, Wisconsin was home to 971,000 hectares of prairie. From 1830-1994, prairie loss accelerated, with the majority of the loss caused by European settlements and later urban and agricultural development, reducing prairie cover by 99.9% and leaving the state with roughly 4000 hectares (Samson and Knopf, 1994; Askins et al., 2007). Despite their decline/degradation, prairies remain extremely important in supporting local biodiversity and the environment. Protected and managed ecosystems, such as reconstructed prairies, have positive effects on biodiversity, which then provide ecosystem services by keeping water clean, producing food and regulating the climate (Woodley et al., 2015).

Since 2021, Wisconsin has endured an abnormal increase in level of drought severity throughout the state. At points during the summer of 2023, 81% of the state was experiencing drought, with 12.2% in extreme drought (level D3). Moreover, much of the drought was concentrated in southern Wisconsin, where prairies are prevalent (National Integrated Drought Information System, 2017) (Figure 1).

One of the primary ways drought affects grassland ecosystems is by lowering the nutrient availability within the soil. When soil is re-moistened after a prolonged dry period, microbes are killed and carbon and nitrogen mineralization increases, making nutrient uptake more difficult (Vries et al., 2016).

Nutrient absorption is mainly controlled by the underground architecture of the plant, specifically their root systems. Plant root structure is divided into two broad categories: taproot systems and fibrous root systems (Figure 2). While fibrous roots tend to spread and stay closer to the surface, taproots probe deeper into the soil. Typically, taproots serve to gain more water access for the plant, and fibrous roots increase nutrient uptake (Anbarasan and Ramesh, 2021). We expect that taproots will be more prevalent in dry prairies, and fibrous roots will be more prevalent in wet prairies, but given climatic shifts, changes in taproot and fibrous root dominance are still unknown.

To track these potential underground shifts on a broader scale, we are exploring aboveground remote sensing technologies. Advances in satellite and aerial imagery quality and availability have allowed for additional opportunities to monitor landscape conditions, especially with the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), a remote sensing derived vegetation index which measures an ecosystem’s health based on the difference between the red and near-infrared light being reflected from the ground (NASA Earthdata, 2024). The NDVI scale ranges from -1 to 1, with the healthier photosynthesizing plants receiving a higher score. Previous studies have found that NDVI varies based on wetland type and condition but is typically lower because the water interferes with the signal (Taddeo et al., 2019). But, in a drought with limited water resources, these wet prairie areas may have a healthier NDVI value due to more access to water and less visible water, while dry prairies will hold a lower value.

This study examines plant species composition within the different types of prairies of southern Wisconsin, comparing root morphology to understand how environmental changes have affected relative frequency of plant morphology types in prairies. We hypothesize that wet prairies will exhibit a higher ratio of fibrous roots to taproots, while dry prairies will show the opposite pattern. We further expect reconstructed prairies to have higher NDVI due to active management, along with wet prairies because of higher moisture.

Figure 1. Wisconsin drought levels on August 1, 2023 (National Integrated Drought Information System, 2017).

Methods

The data collection portion of this study was conducted from June 2025 to November 2025, surveying 11 sites in southern Wisconsin (Figure 3). Four of the sites sampled were characterized as “dry prairies” based on their historic soil and species composition (UW-Madison Arboretum pers. com.; Lakeshore Nature Preserve, n.d.; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, n.d.), with another four labeled as “wet prairies,” one “mixed reconstructed”—a reconstructed site with intermediate soil—and two “dry reconstructed.” At each site, 0.5 meter by 0.5 meter quadrats were taken at randomized points throughout the selected area, with between 10–30 quadrats per site, predetermined depending on site size.

Within each quadrat, we measured the percent cover of each species, including a separate category for any bare ground or foliage. We also noted soil moisture, composition, and if there was a slope within each quadrat. We categorized each species into their root types by gathering information from Illinois Wildflowers (Hilty, 2017), and then comparing that information to photographed specimens found on the Wisconsin State Herbarium Database (Wisconsin State Herbarium, n.d.), and divided the species into taproot or fibrous root.

Later, we obtained the 2025 precipitation data for each site from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2025). We also gathered surface reflectance values from the most recent USDA National Agriculture Imagery Program survey in 2022 (USDA, 2022) and used QGIS to calculate the NDVI for each site. To analyze the data, we used an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare NDVI to site type and root type to site type.

Left: Figure 2: Illustration of root morphology types (National Garden Association, n.d.).

Right: Figure 3: Map of the 11 field sites surveyed. Bolz prairie had two separate sites, on one point.

Results

Over the six months of data collection, we surveyed 11 prairie sites, including four wet prairies, four dry prairies, two dry reconstructed prairies and one mixed reconstructed prairie, observing 164 plant species across all sites. The difference in root-morphology-type percentage was significant (p-value < 0.000001, f statistic of 13.496825), with the highest percent of taproot species in dry reconstructed prairies, closely followed by dry prairies (Figure 4), supporting our hypothesis that we would observe higher fibrous to taproot ratios in wet prairie environments.

While we initially expected wet and reconstructed prairies to have higher NDVI values, there was no significant difference in the NDVI between different site types (p = 0.7816, f = 0.0879), but overall dry reconstructed, mixed reconstructed, and wet prairies held higher values compared to dry prairies (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Stacked bar chart of root morphology type by site type classification.

D=Dry Prairies, DR=Dry Restored, MR=Mixed Restored, W=Wet Prairies

Discussion

To determine whether or not prairies respond differently to drought, we tested the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and percent of individuals with taproot/fibrous root systems at each site. We found no statistically significant difference in NDVI between the different site types, however a marginal difference was noted between sites, specifically the reconstructed prairies (both dry and mixed) held the highest NDVI, closely followed by wet prairies, while dry prairies had the lowest. While wet prairies were deemed “healthier” according to the higher 2022 NDVI value, they had a significantly larger percentage of invasive species, meaning that while these ecosystems have a high biomass, they are functionally less resilient. A large number of the wet prairie sites were covered with Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass), a common invasive plant throughout North America (Martina and von Ende, 2013). From observation, P. arundinacea had almost completely overwhelmed any native flora within several individual quadrats.

The root type overall was dominated by fibrous roots, with taproots reaching their maximum share at dry and dry reconstructed prairies (Figure 4), which agrees with the initial hypothesis. However, P. arundinacea has fibrous roots, likely largely influencing the root type percentage.

In comparing the prairie types, Wisconsin’s wet prairies had a high amount of biomass, but were highly infiltrated by P. arundinacea, indicating a lower functional resilience. In the dry prairies, there was a higher species richness and a higher percentage of species with taproots. In reconstructed prairies, there was a higher NDVI and species richness, suggesting success in restoration efforts. In flooded conditions, P. arundinacea is known to do well, explaining why its presence in wet prairies was so apparent. P. arundinacea has been reported to stay relatively healthy in drought conditions, so long as its roots have some sort of contact with water (Kemp & Culvenor, 1994).

Our findings demonstrate the importance of understanding how shifts in the climate affect ecosystem health, even if not entirely apparent at first, which is especially important considering the anticipated climate changes southern Wisconsin is expected to face. However, there is much more to be done to grasp a full understanding of changes within prairie ecosystem remnants in Wisconsin. Considering the varied lifespans of prairie plants and climatic shifts in Wisconsin, long term studies could analyze the species’ turnover in different types of prairies. This would help us understand how these prairies have changed, and apply that to learn how they are expected to change. While we now understand where taproots are more prominent, further research in the depth of the roots could help researchers know what species may be more sensitive to droughts of particular magnitudes, and which are more likely to withstand dry conditions. Overall, the information gained from this study will enhance our understanding on how drought impacts different types of prairie ecosystems, vegetative health, and overall biodiversity, helping us protect these sensitive ecosystems.

Figure 5: Bar chart of NDVI compared to site type.

D=Dry Prairies, DR=Dry Restored, MR=Mixed Restored, W=Wet Prairies

Acknowledgements

This project was supported and funded by the UW-Madison Botany Department. I would like to thank Christian Villanueva, Dr. Sara Hotchkiss and Mark Connolly for the consistent support, mentorship, and insightful feedback through this process.

References

Adams, C. R., & Galatowitsch, S. M. (2005). Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): Rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience, 12(4), 569–573. https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-4-569.1

Anbarasan, S., & Ramesh, S. (2021, February). The Role of Plant Roots in Nutrient Uptake and Soil Health. Plantarc.com; Plant Science Archives. https://plantarc.com/the-role-of-plant-roots-in-nutrient-uptake-and-soil-health/

Askins, R. A., Chávez-Ramírez, F., Dale, B. C., Haas, C. A., Herkert, J. R., Knopf, F. L., & Vickery, P. D. (2007). Conservation of Grassland Birds in North America: Understanding Ecological Processes in Different Regions: “Report of the AOU Committee on Conservation.” Ornithological Monographs, 64, iii–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/40166905

Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 377(6606), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2380

Hilty, J. (2017). Illinois Wildflowers. Illinoiswildflowers.info. https://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/

Kemp, D. R., & Culvenor, R. A. (1994). Improving the grazing and drought tolerance of temperate perennial grasses. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 37(3), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1994.9513074

Kercher, S. M., Carpenter, Q. J., & Zedler, J. B. (2004). Interrelationships of Hydrologie Disturbance, Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L), and Native Plants in Wisconsin Wet Meadows. Natural Areas Journal, 24(4), 316–325. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/43912343

Lakeshore Nature Preserve. (n.d.). Biocore Prairie. Lakeshore Nature Preserve. https://lakeshorepreserve.wisc.edu/visit/places/biocore-prairie/

Martina, J. P., & von Ende, C. N. (2013). Increased spatial dominance in high nitrogen, saturated soil due to clonal architecture plasticity of the invasive wetland plant, Phalaris arundinacea. Plant Ecology, 214(12), 1443–1453. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/24553725

NASA Earthdata. (2024, September 30). Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) | NASA Earthdata. NASA Earthdata. https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/topics/land-surface/normalized-difference-vegetation-index-ndvi

National Garden Association. (n.d.). Roots as Anchors. Garden.org. https://garden.org/courseweb/course1/week1/page8.htm

National Integrated Drought Information System. (2017). Historical Data and Conditions. Drought.gov. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=0&selectedDateUSDM=20230801&state=Wisconsin

Samson, F., & Knopf, F. (1994). Prairie Conservation in North America. BioScience, 44(6), 418–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312365

Schulte, L. A., Anna Lynn MacDonald, Niemi, J., & Helmers, M. J. (2016). Prairie strips as a mechanism to promote land sharing by birds in industrial agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 220, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.007

Taddeo, S., Dronova, I., & Depsky, N. (2019). Spectral vegetation indices of wetland greenness: Responses to vegetation structure, composition, and spatial distribution. Remote Sensing of Environment, 234(111467). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111467

Tresenriter, L., Griffin, J., Hanauer, K., Lowe, B., Fry, O., Stout, S., Johnson, B., & Brooke, J. (n.d.). Reed Canary Grass Control. https://www.purdue.edu/fnr/extension/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FNR-648ReedCanarygrassADA-final-comp2.pdf

USDA. (2022). National Agriculture Imagery Program Hub Site. Naip-Usdaonline.hub.arcgis.com. https://naip-usdaonline.hub.arcgis.com/

USDA. (2025). Snowpack and Precipitation Index Maps | Natural Resources Conservation Service. Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/sswsf-snow-survey-and-water-supply-forecasting-program/snowpack-and

Vries, F., Brown, C., & Stevens, C. (2016). Grassland species root response to drought: consequences for soil carbon and nitrogen availability. Plant and Soil, 409(1/2), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/44245232

Weaver, J. E., & Albertson, F. W. (1943). Resurvey of Grasses, Forbs, and Underground Plant Parts at the End of the Great Drought. Ecological Monographs, 13(1), 63–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943590

Weaver, J. E., Stoddart, L. A., & Noll, Wm. (1935). Response of the Prairie to the Great Drought of 1934. Ecology, 16(4), 612. https://doi.org/10.2307/1932592

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Protecting Wisconsin’s Biodiversity – Natural Communities. Apps.dnr.wi.gov. https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/biodiversity/Home/index/communities

Wisconsin State Herbarium. (n.d.). Online Virtual Flora of Wisconsin Home. Wisflora.herbarium.wisc.edu. https://wisflora.herbarium.wisc.edu/index.php

Woodley, S., MacKinnon, K., McCanny, S., Pither, R., Prior, K., Salafsky, N., & Lindenmayer, D. (2015). Managing Protected Areas for Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Functions (G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, & I. Pulsford, Eds.). JSTOR; ANU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1657v5d.28

This article appeared in the Fall 2026 edition of The Prairie Promoter, a publication of news, art and writing from The Prairie Enthusiasts community. Explore the full collection and learn how to submit your work here.

About The Prairie Enthusiasts

The Prairie Enthusiasts is an accredited land trust that seeks to ensure the perpetuation and recovery of prairie, oak savanna, and other fire-dependent ecosystems of the Upper Midwest through protection, management, restoration, and education. In doing so, they strive to work openly and cooperatively with private landowners and other private and public conservation groups. Their management and stewardship centers on high-quality remnants, which contain nearly all the components of endangered prairie communities.

What a Difference a Year Makes!

by The Prairie Enthusiasts | Jun 2, 2026 | Inspiration

What a Difference a Year Makes!

Article by Rob Schubert, Empire-Sauk Chapter Land Manager and Site Steward

June 2, 2026

Volunteer winter work party group. Photo by Rob Schubert.

Progress at Giordano Oak Barrens and Sand Prairie has been fantastic! We’ve been able to affect more than 14.5 acres of intensive tree and brush removal since efforts at the 40-acre site in Columbia County began in January 2025. Not many of those can be counted as “completed acres,” but we have been able to accomplish a lot of the work required to restore this site.

The effort has come from multiple sources. Empire-Sauk Chapter land management staff have been crucial. Volunteer interest and turnout have been consistently growing over the past two years, with a small but dedicated group of locals now actively involved. Engaging partners has resulted in much more progress than what otherwise could have been accomplished. And, in addition to all of this, there is some degree of luck.

The first big push came with help from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS).

Brendan Woodall, formerly of USFWS, and I developed a suitable scope of work. We were limited by which methods could be implemented on the site. We also needed to make fast progress to build success and justify project costs. We determined that using hydraulic tree shears would be the best approach; they would allow us to impact a large area, make a clear and dramatic shift in the natural community, minimize impact to sensitive features and limit the initial follow up required.

We were able to hire a contractor to remove cedar and pine on approximately eight acres using $10,000 of available funding. This work was conducted expertly by Keith Baker of WiseAxe, LLC. Using a mini excavator and hydraulic shears, Keith was able to cut off cedars and pines at ground level, thus opening the most intact sand prairie in a way that did not result in soil disturbance or cause significant resprouting of hardwood species. Trees that were too large in diameter to remove, he de-limbed and sheared where he could reach, sometimes 20 feet up the trunk, leaving the spires which now add a bit of whimsy to the site.

Keith is an amazing equipment operator, and I wish I had been able to spend more time watching him at his craft. Unfortunately, I had to head down to Missouri for a training. While I was away, Evan Nelson helped oversee the work on my behalf. This wouldn’t be the last time Evan’s involvement proved important.

After Keith finished his work, there were brush piles everywhere. These piles needed to be consolidated and moved. Without snow on the ground and the ability to burn, the work was even harder. Evan spent multiple days moving material with his tractor. Bo Hendrickson (formerly with USFWS) also came down and spent a day moving material with a skid steer.

Without this help, we would not have been able to get all the material moved and minimize burn scars. I’d been adding about three new plant species to the inventory list each time I visited the site. Knowing there was still a lot to be discovered and that these newly observed populations were small and scattered across the site, I needed to avoid accidentally extirpating species.

Removing cedars from the most extant prairie and sand blows was the main priority. Eliminating the threat of encroachment and intensive follow-up maintenance was another major concern.

Black locust occupied three main areas when the property was acquired. Two of the areas occupy the most degraded, lowest priority areas; the third was immediately adjacent to the sand prairie.

Shala and Rob felling pines. Photo by Luke DeBiasio.

The clone was spreading. About 2.5 acres of black locust needed to be removed, and quickly! The area was also strategically important to be able to plan burn units and reintroduce prescribed fire to the site.

Black locust is notoriously difficult to control. It’s a clonal species that spreads via roots and can persistently re-sprout following removal efforts. Effective control requires, in part, specialized herbicide, which is both expensive and very capable of causing undesirable impacts to other legume species, such as lead plant and goat’s rue, especially in sandy soils.

Foliar spraying of black locust resprouts for years on end was not a viable option.

To avoid chasing black locust indefinitely, we needed to get the entire clone cut in a single dormant season. The former stand was approximately 2.5 acres. With 100 to 200 trees per acre, we were going to need to cut some trees.

Luckily for us, Evan Nelson lives just down the road. Evan owns Good Oak Ecological Services and brings the full complement of skills, equipment and knowledge it takes to implement ecological restoration and land management.

Evan brought two of his staff to join James Haas (former Chapter Crew Leader) and me, and we spent a day cutting black locust and piling and burning material. With four of us cutting trees and Evan on the tractor, we punched a big hole in the stand that day.

Most of the material that Evan and Bo moved off the sand prairie got piled and burned in the area where the black locust was being removed. Thus, we were able to achieve two tasks at once.

Before land stewardship by Eric Preston.

After stewardship by Rob Schubert.

We did not get the entire area cut in one day. We spent several more days felling trees, joined by volunteers who helped burn material. When we couldn’t burn piles due to a lack of snow, we staged cut material to be moved later.

Progress was slow without equipment. The area beneath the black locust was dense with other invasive brush like honeysuckle and buckthorn, and the densely crowded stand meant other trees like black cherry and black oak had to come out as well. And we certainly couldn’t leave the mulberry and hybrid elm.

One day, after a work party, I was alone at the site. I looked up to see a stranger had walked onto the property. He had a disgusted look on his face as he surveyed the downed trees and scattered piles of crowns.

“Are you gonna burn all this up?” he asked. “Most of it,” I replied.

He wanted the black locust and whatever other hardwood was there. I wanted to see the material put to good use and needed help getting everything out of my work area.

Jeff offered to use his tractor and trailer to remove the material, so we scheduled a day. I would fell the trees, and he would pull them out.

I showed up early to find a 60 hp tractor with a logging winch sitting at the gate. This was not what I was expecting. When he showed up with a super duty truck pulling a hydraulic dump trailer, I realized he was serious.

It was late winter by then, with conditions warm enough to thaw the still frozen ground in the forecast. We had one final day to get the cutting done. It was hard work, but with Jeff pulling out trees and no one in my felling zone, I was able to finish cutting the last black locust out of the stand.

With the final trees out, I surveyed the trees that had been felled, cut to length, and lined up, the trailer loaded, and staged logs ready for when the trailer returned empty.

Pleased with things, I looked around and said, “Not a bad day for two old guys.”

Things took a pause for a while. In the seasonal rhythm of land management, all efforts went towards burn season.

The black locust stayed on my mind. I was expecting the worst. I started seeing it come up in other areas, but I wasn’t seeing it yet at the Giordano site. I just wanted to know how bad it was going to be.

Once it did eventually come up, the deer started hammering it! I was thinking about how to get it mowed to keep it from getting too tall to foliar spray. The deer were doing this for me.

Guy (Chapter Land Management staff) and I spent a day in July spot spraying locust sprouts. All told, things were much better than expected, with re-sprouts coming entirely from remaining root stock and not from cut stumps.

When James, Luke (Chapter Assistant Land Manager) and I returned in August for a follow up application, things were looking good. Our previous application had been effective, and we treated the black locusts we missed in the densest areas and along the periphery of the clone.

Things again took a pause. The seasonal rhythm took us through seed collection and fall burning, until we again began removing trees and brush to open the lost prairie and savanna.

We had more help this time. Shala (former Chapter Land Management staff) had temporarily joined our team. Shala and I had worked together in the past doing for-profit restoration work, and she understands the production mentality that comes from doing this for a living.

Good Oak Crew cutting black locust. Photo by Rob Schubert.

We were also better organized. John Exo and Kevin McKown (Chaper members and volunteers) agreed to continue to help lead work parties. With the ability of The Prairie Enthusiasts staff to do the most difficult tree removal and holding multiple work parties a month, we were getting a lot done.

The progress has been fantastic. As Luke said, “It seems as though every time more progress was made, another interested volunteer took notice of the work being done and wanted to help.” Soon we had an almost regular crowd who would join for our workdays.

Again, we had a lot of help from Jeff and Evan. Jeff helped move and consolidate the trees we felled into burnable piles. Evan donated some of his staff’s time and equipment, allowing us to finally remove the last pines and cedars from one of the sand blows. Then he spent a few more days over the weekend moving material with his tractor and burning piles to help us prep a burn unit for this fall.

At this point, we took a pause. It’s important sometimes to stop and reflect, to appreciate things, to not have an adversarial relationship with the land. With goals accomplished and winter dwindling, we move into the next phase of the seasonal rhythm.

In all my years managing restoration projects, I’ve never had to do so much work with so few resources as I have with Giordano Oak Barrens and Sand Prairie. What we’ve been able to accomplish really has been remarkable. What I’ve described is just some of the work that has been done. There has been invasive control and other work that just doesn’t fit neatly into a single chronologic narrative. There has been survey work of various taxa; herptiles, flora, insects, birds and bats. Others have volunteered time to do the annual site monitoring, take drone imagery to document progress, manage hunting permits, collect seed, mow trails and post boundary signs; the list goes on.

And that’s what it takes. No individual has the skills and capacity to manage a restoration project; it takes a team.

This article appeared in the Summer 2026 edition of The Prairie Promoter, a publication of news, art and writing from The Prairie Enthusiasts community. Explore the full collection and learn how to submit your work here.

About The Prairie Enthusiasts

Making the Most of Hard to Get Seeds

by The Prairie Enthusiasts | Jun 2, 2026 | Management Methods

Making the Most of Hard to Get Seeds

Article and photos by Dan Carter, The Prairie Enthusiasts Ecologist

June 2, 2026

Each year we collect what seeds we are able, and we broadcast them where we think they are most likely to succeed. That may sound simple, but a lot goes into deciding where we put our precious seeds. What factors guide those decisions? Many of us already know that some species require wet or dry, sun or shade, or acidic or alkaline or calcium-rich soil. Goat’s rue (Tephrosia virginiana) likes acidic, sandy soil. Tuberous Indian plantain (Arnoglossum plantagineum) likes calcareous soil. Other species are much less picky. For instance, false toadflax (Comandra umbellata) can grow in dry prairies and low prairies, in dolomite gravels and acidic oak barrens, in wide open prairies and in healthy oak woodlands. Where species grow, whether across broad gradients or very narrow ones, informs where we might consider spreading their seeds, but there are other factors to consider.

Let me take a step back to give some context. Much seed goes into prairie plantings on lands transitioning out of row-crop agriculture or into areas where existing perennial vegetation has been sprayed in order to “start from scratch.” Those are outside of the scope of what follows, though I will take this opportunity to urge practitioners to critically evaluate whether or not starting from scratch is the most appropriate course of action (see Spring 2026 issue of The Prairie Promoter that touches on that). Here I’m focusing on the restoration of degraded, never cultivated sites or augmentation of sites that may be old fields, but now support perennial herbaceous vegetation and may or may not be receptive to our precious seeds. Below I describe what I’m looking for in my efforts to make the most of limited resources.

Freshly clipped seed heads of wood betony (Pedicularis canadensis). We don’t want to waste these!

The locations that are the best candidates for interseeding have relatively low and sparse vegetation. Exotic cool-season grasses aren’t vigorous and only flower sparsely. The underlying soil or its covering of moss may be visible from above. Native plants like strawberry (Fragaria virginiana or F. vesca), old-field cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex) and cat’s foot (Antenneria spp.), or exotic plants like Deptford pink (Dianthus armeria) and Oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) may be present. Weedy annuals like foxtail (Seteria spp.) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) may be present, but they grow sparsely and only shin to knee high. Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) is often present too. Together, these clues indicate that there is room for new seedlings to grow and get adequate light. They also indicate that nutrient availability is low, which tends to favor relatively nutrient-efficient conservative species over time—the same species whose seeds are often in shortest supply. Eventually, these conservative species can shoulder out the non-native species mentioned above as well as many others.

Another thing I look for is flammability. In the woods that may mean leaf litter and some sedge cover. In the open that means grasses and sedges—usually exotic, cool season grasses like Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). If productivity is a little greater due to greater nutrient availability or moisture, being able to burn and remove detritus prior to spreading seeds is very important to promote seed-soil contact and so seedlings can emerge unobstructed. Of course, burning can also keep other problems like woody encroachment at bay while conservative species establish. Repeated burning also promotes the condition of low nutrient availability in the long-term by repeatedly volatilizing nitrogen and producing little bits of charcoal that bind available nutrients. Establishment in just about any context just seems to be better and faster the sooner and more often dormant season burning occurs.

It may be drab, but after a burn to remove the thatch, this area dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and old field cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex) is a great place to spread some seed.

I consider the presence of herbaceous invasive species. I’m not worried about most upland exotic, cool season grasses or non-native plants like the ones I’ve already mentioned. I am concerned about species that will require chemical intervention like soapwort (Saponaria officinalis) and crown vetch (Securigera varia), especially if they are distributed throughout a site. Obviously, it’s best not to seed where broadcast chemical application is already needed.

When do I plant the seeds? I generally aim to plant them more or less when nature does. For some early-ripening seeds like wood betony (Pedicularis canadensis) or bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis) that means I plant seeds in late spring or early summer right after I collect them. I plant most seeds that ripen from mid-summer onwards in late autumn or early winter, either after a fall burn or a few months ahead of a late winter/early spring burn.

One of a couple dozen prairie parsley seedlings (Polytaenia nuttallii) detected the spring after the planting area was burned and seeds subsequently individually poked into the soil.

If you only have a small amount of seed for a prized species, don’t spread it over a large area. Instead, concentrate the seed in patches. Many species either require or benefit from cross-pollination, so they need their nearest conspecific neighbors to be close-by in order to create adequate floral display to attract pollinators and subsequently reliably set seed and continue to increase. I go so far as to individually plant some seeds in small groupings. Depending on your capacity, it may also be worthwhile to produce plugs/transplants when seeds are in short supply.

In any case, keep records of what you planted and where. That way when something makes an appearance, sometimes after many years, you’ll remember it’s something you planted! In most cases, seedlings will appear the season after you plant seeds, but it may take several or more years before plants are large enough to be detected or begin to flower.

About The Prairie Enthusiasts

Wicking Glove Basal Bark Treatment

by The Prairie Enthusiasts | Jun 2, 2026 | Management Methods

Wicking Glove Basal Bark Treatment

Article and photos by Dan Carter, The Prairie Enthusiasts Ecologist

June 2, 2026

Many variables factor into the decision to mechanically pull, cut and treat stumps, apply basal bark treatment or use other approaches to remove invasive brush. The species and time of year are major factors. We often use basal bark treatment on invasive brush and small trees with smooth bark, and we avoid cutting and treating stumps during the period in spring when sap is flowing. Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), one of our most abundant targets, has a broad sap flow season and smooth bark, so when we can’t pull it, we often use basal bark treatment.

One of the problems with basal bark treatments that are applied by spray onto trunks is overspray; sometimes herbicide misses its target or excess runs down the trunk onto the soil. We want to avoid overspray, because we often work in sensitive areas. Readers should keep in mind that there is also evidence of off-target impacts via root exudation or release that occurs during decomposition (e.g., Graziano et al. 2022, in Weed Science), so test your treatment in a small area, and always monitor treatment effects. Other approaches should be used in areas of higher quality, remnant vegetation if possible. Off-target damage is most likely to occur when many stems are treated in a small area.

To avoid overspray, we use a wicking glove or “glove of death” approach. This involves wearing chemical resistant gloves of adequate thickness (≥14 mils for Garlon® 4) that extend at least mid-way up the forearm on both hands, and a dusting glove over the chemical resistant glove on one hand (I prefer my non-dominant hand). I also wear a thinner, nitrile glove under the dusting and thicker chemical resistant gloves in case the outer glove develops a hole, but that is unlikely if rough or thorny species are avoided. A spray bottle or pump sprayer can be used to saturate the dusting glove around the thumb and first two fingers with herbicide (often 20% solution of triclopyr ester herbicide in basal oil). Then I grasp each stem and apply herbicide 360 degrees around its base. How far upward depends on stem diameter. I treat the lower 18 inches of stems above 1.5 inches in diameter and the lower foot on smaller stems. I only treat a few inches of very small stems. All stems on multi-stemmed shrubs or small trees should be treated. Apply herbicide generously—not so much that it runs off, but a bit more than it takes to simply stain the bark. Basal oil often contains a dye, or a dye may be added, but the oil itself will generally stain the bark and give it a darker appearance. This requires re-charging the glove with herbicide frequently.

Left to Right: Dusting glove over chemical resistant glove. Dusting glove saturated around the thumb and first two fingers. Treatment of glossy buckthorn stem. Glossy buckthorn after treatment.

When treated during the growing season, targets typically die within two to five weeks. They may leaf out after winter treatments and subsequently die. Other considerations that apply to basal treatments include:

Work during cool weather to minimize volatilization, which can affect very nearby vegetation and isn’t healthy for the applicator. I work on cool days or during the cool of morning when the temperature is below 70°F (often 30-60°F) and direct sunshine is not warming surfaces. Volatilization risk is greatest during and immediately after application.
Work during dry weather. I don’t apply herbicide if there is a chance of rain within 72 hours. I try to apply herbicide when I have high confidence that it will be dry for four days, especially in areas with surrounding sensitive vegetation. This needs study, but the longer the dry period after application, the better.
Don’t mix herbicide with diesel fuel. Product labels may allow it, but diesel is volatile and more toxic than basal oils designed for use with herbicides.
Wicking gloves may be re-used, but chemical resistant gloves should be discarded if not continuing treatment the same day. Chemicals slowly work their way through most chemical resistant gloves, regardless of thickness.
Strictly adhere to herbicide labels.

About The Prairie Enthusiasts

Why Prairie Restorations Look Messy – At First

by The Prairie Enthusiasts | Mar 3, 2026 | Management Methods

Why Prairie Restorations Look Messy – At First

Written by Brent J. Anderson, Minnesota Oak Savanna Chapter member

March 3, 2025

If you have ever stood at the edge of a newly planted prairie and thought, “This doesn’t look like much,” you’re not alone. I have heard it from landowners, neighbors and volunteers – and I’ve said it myself. The first year or two after a prairie planting can feel anticlimactic, even discouraging. Photos and seed mixes promise color, movement and diversity. What shows up instead often looks uneven, weedy or unfinished.

Among prairie restoration professionals, there is an old adage used to level-set expectations: “First year they sleep, second year they creep, third year they leap.” Experts know this rhythm well. Most newcomers do not – and that is understandable. We are used to landscapes responding quickly to effort. Prairies operate on a different timeline, and that early “messy” phase is not a sign of failure. It is a sign the system is getting to work.

One of the hardest mental shifts for people new to prairie restoration is realizing prairies are not gardens. They are not designed for immediate visual payoff. In the early years, the priority is not flowers – it is roots. Native prairie plants invest heavily below ground, building deep, resilient root systems that anchor soil, improve water movement and support microbial life. What we see above ground represents only a small portion of what is actually happening.

That is also why so-called “weeds” often dominate early on. Disturbed soils invite opportunistic plants responding to open space and sunlight. While no one wants invasive species to take over, the presence of certain early plants is not automatically a problem. Some have aggressive or deep roots that help break up compacted or clay-heavy soils, improving structure and water infiltration. In many cases, they act as temporary placeholders, occupying space while slower-growing prairie species establish themselves.

Management during this phase is important, but it often looks different than people expect. One of the most common and effective tools is mowing – especially during the cool season, when non-native plants thrive and grow fastest (overnight temps are below 70F – May and June). Early mowing helps prevent fast-growing non-natives from shading out young prairie seedlings that are still finding their footing. Typically, mowing continues through spring and early summer. After that point, non-native species mostly slow down and native plants can grow past them, and begin to take a competitive advantage. While most mowing efforts can lessen in July and August, it’s important to monitor the height of non-native species (e.g., Canada thistle and velvet leaf) and address out-competing stands as necessary. For smaller plots, I like to use a weed whacker or even a scissors to slowly move through the site and discover newly germinated species or get pics of bees and butterflies.

A simple rule of thumb many practitioners use is this: When non-native plants reach about 12 inches tall, mow or weed whack them back to roughly 6 to 8 inches. This practice stunts cool-season weeds without harming young native prairie plants intended for long-term establishment. Native prairie plants are also sensitive to cutting, but are often shorter in stature (especially year 1 and 2) during the cool season. For best results, it is generally wise to never trim closer than about 5 inches tall.

For small “pocket prairies” in backyards or front yards, weed whipping can be just as effective – and often more practical – than mowing. The goal is the same: reduce competition and light blockage, not create a manicured appearance. Used thoughtfully, these tools are not about “cleaning things up.” They are about guiding competition during a vulnerable stage.

Another common concern for newcomers is dead plant material left behind after a growing season. To many observers, it looks untidy or neglected. Ecologically, it is anything but. Standing stems and fallen leaves protect the soil surface, moderate temperature extremes and reduce erosion. As that material breaks down, it feeds soil organisms – bacteria, fungi and other microbes – that drive nutrient cycling. This quiet exchange between plants and soil is foundational to prairie health, even if it is not immediately visible.

I remember visiting an early restoration site a few years ago with someone who expected something closer to a wildflower postcard. What they saw instead was patchy growth, seed heads from the previous year and plenty of bare ground. We stood there for a moment before they finally said, “So … I’m not loving it. Is this the way it’s supposed to look?”

A year later, we walked the same site again. New species had appeared. The ground felt firmer underfoot. The prairie had not transformed overnight, but it had clearly turned a corner.

Prairie restorations reward patience because they are doing long-term work. In those early years, ecosystems are being rebuilt from the ground up – literally. Roots grow deeper, soil communities diversify and the seed bank begins to develop. Diversity comes later, once the foundation can support it.

Learning to read a prairie means learning to see beyond aesthetics. Messy does not mean broken. Sparse does not mean unsuccessful. Often, it means the system is doing exactly what it should. By the time a prairie begins to “leap,” much of the most important work has already happened, unseen.

If we can adjust our expectations and trust the process, we give prairies the time they need to become what they are meant to be: resilient, diverse and alive in ways that do not always announce themselves right away.

Minnesota Oak Savanna Chapter of The Prairie Enthusiasts

Our chapter includes the Minnesota counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne and Wright Counties. While our chapter prioritizes identification and management of remnant fire-dependent systems, many times we’re actively involved in restoration work – especially in creating buffers around existing remnants, or assisting landowners committed to re-creating prairies on their properties. We’re actively seeking new members committed to the protection and care of prairie remnants, managing prairies through prescribed fire, restoring degraded prairies, building new prairies and/or excited to learn about prairie projects in their own communities. We invite you to subscribe to our Chapter updates and become a member. Learn more about the Minnesota Oak Savanna Chapter here.

About The Prairie Enthusiasts

« Older Entries