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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Garlic Mustard Season is Beginning: Tips and Tricks

by Cassidy Coulson | Apr 6, 2026 | Management Methods

Garlic Mustard Season is Beginning: Tips and Tricks

Written by Dan Carter. Photos by Dan Carter.

April 6, 2026

Garlic mustard season is beginning. The image shows garlic mustard seedlings (left) next to a second-year plant (right) that will flower later this spring if we allow it. They are growing beneath walnut, boxelder, and common buckthorn.

Before you work to control it, I strongly encourage looking for underlying contributors to garlic mustard invasion. Garlic mustard is often most abundant where exotic brush or trees like walnut, black locust, white mulberry, or boxelder are present. These not only produce the shade garlic mustard likes, but their leaf litter decomposes rapidly. This rapid decomposition means that the litter fails to physically obstruct garlic mustard seedlings, and it also means that the litter releases nutrients and essentially fertilizes garlic mustard at the perfect time for garlic mustard to take advantage. I don’t bother doing anything about garlic mustard in those kinds of settings unless it is part of a restoration project that is also addressing the underlying problem of high nutrient availability and excessive shade. Even then, I might not worry about a little garlic mustard if restoration activities cause the site to become dramatically sunnier and more exposed to drying winds, because garlic mustard competes poorly in such settings.

When I do control garlic mustard, I rely on the following:

1) Consecutive years of prescribed fire between fall and very early spring, if there is adequate leaf litter or other fuel. Garlic mustard is green through the dormant season, so burning at that time harms it. Very well-timed burns just after seedlings germinate (late March in southern Wisconsin) are very beneficial. Most second-year plants will survive fire, but have reduced vigor, but there will be few second-year plants if burns occur over a few consecutive years.

2) In late March or very early April I use a flame weeder (torch connected to a propane tank) when conditions are damp and there is no risk of starting a wildfire. It only takes a quick pass of the heat of the flame to melt away young seedling plants, and they won’t come back. Second year plants will be damaged, but most won’t be killed unless you keep the flame on them for long periods.

3) I pull second year plants beginning as soon as the ground thaws and continue through early flowering. Pulled plants do not need to be removed from the site so long as they aren’t left with good root contact to soil. Seed pods (siliques) that have not begun to fatten will not produce viable seeds.

I generally don’t foliar spray garlic mustard with herbicide, because I find the above approaches to be sufficient. Also, many desirable native species maintain green leaves through the winter, and if they are present, I don’t want them to get sprayed. They tend to be perennials that recover from flame weeding and benefit for dormant season fires.

(Regarding photos below) The first photo shows an area under a large white mulberry tree with many walnut trees coming up around it. These produce ideal habitat for garlic mustard and other weeds–fast-decomposing leaf litter that doesn’t smother plants that are green during the cold times of year and releases nutrients when garlic mustard can most take advantage. I wouldn’t bother with garlic mustard control in a setting like this unless it was a new arrival to an area or I was concurrently addressing the underlying problem, which here is white mulberry and walnut that don’t belong in a savanna. The second picture shows up close what is growing beneath the mulberry and walnut–abundant garlic mustard, dame’s rocket, and motherwort. The other carrot family thing probably is either sweet cicely or aniseroot (not sure). Those two species and other native woodland plants with sticktight seeds like white avens, honewort, and stickseed are often found in places like this.

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.

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

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.

Reason for Optimism: Long-Term Results from Planting Prairie into Live Exotic Cool-Season Grass Sod

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

Reason for Optimism: Long-Term Results from Planting Prairie into Live Exotic Cool–Season Grass Sod

Article and Photos by Dan Carter, The Prairie Enthusiasts Ecologist
March 2, 2025

Poke milkweed (Asclepias exaltata) in September after being planted as a plug in May in a shady area of savanna. Plugs were propagated in this case, because only a very limited amount seed with local genetics was available.

A few years back I wrote about the potential of old pastures and mature old fields dominated by cool season grass, many of which still support important populations of native prairie and savanna species. This is often very good reason on its own to forego broadcast spray of broad-spectrum herbicide, cultivation or other start-from-scratch techniques to re-establish prairie or savanna in those contexts. Another reason is that the alternative—treating a nonnative, cool-season-dominated sod as though it were prairie or savanna by restoring fire and facilitating dispersal of appropriate plant species back—can be wildly successful. The best examples of this that I know are the restoration of savanna pasture Sugar River Savanna and prairie plantings into mature smooth brome (Bromus inermis) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) plantings at the Mounds View Grassland. While these successes are visually obvious to visitors of those sites, data is needed to help us communicate success and advocate for the associated methods.

In the summer 2025 issue of The Prairie Promoter I wrote about assessing ecological integrity using mean C, which is the mean of coefficients of conservatism assigned to the flora based on how faithful or “conservative” they are to old-growth natural communities (remnants). Coefficients range from zero (no fidelity to old-growth) to ten (very high fidelity to old-growth). According to Swink and Wilhelm (1994)¹, areas with mean C values of 3.5 or greater are generally of at least marginal natural area quality, areas with mean C values of 4.5 or greater are almost certainly remnants with natural area potential, and only rarely do reconstruction projects achieve a mean C higher than 3.5. That still may be true, though I think more efforts are doing better. Please refer to the previous article for more discussion of ecological integrity and the ecological meaning of coefficients.

Last year I resolved to study the plainly successful prairie plantings into live brome and other exotic cool-season sods at Mounds View Grassland and characterize them in terms of mean C, which is meaningful in and of itself. An additional advantage to studying prairie plantings at Mounds View is the presence of remnant prairies on the same immediate landscape, so remnant prairies’ mean C values were also assessed for reference and compared to those of the prairie plantings. The data I collected will be used to develop a presentation and a manuscript for submission to a regional or restoration-focused journal. Here I share some of the preliminary findings.

Methods

I sampled eight relatively mature upland prairie plantings at Mounds View Grassland, a preserve in eastern Iowa County, Wisconsin owned by The Prairie Enthusiasts. Plantings were generally dry-mesic to borderline mesic. The youngest planting was in its 11th growing season. The oldest was in its 26th growing season. To prepare for each planting, existing sods of cool-season grass were burned for one to three consecutive years in advance of initial seeding to remove thatch and lessen cool-season grass vigor. Most of these cool-season sods had been present for decades and were originally established as smooth brome CRP plantings on land that was previously cultivated. Most prairie plantings received initial broadcast seeding for one or two years with follow-up seeding in lesser amounts subsequently. Seed was broadcast in fall, except for some early-ripening species which were broadcast in summer. Plantings received annual or near-annual early spring burning after seeding (including the spring immediately following fall seeding) for a decade or more. These burns were early enough to avoid killing germinating prairie plants and negative impacts to important prairie cool-season species (March or the first half of April, depending on the conditions).

Location where a stiff aster (Ionactis linariifolia) plug was planted and the top was eaten off. I was still watering it, because the crown and roots of the plant were still in the ground.

I identified two ten-meter sampling transect locations in each planting prior to field work using aerial photography. Transect locations were selected such that they were dispersed within the planting area, and all portions of transects were at least three meters from edges. Transects were also positioned parallel to slopes to maximize gradients associated with slope positions and underlying soils, bedrock, and moisture. I wanted to capture as much of the variation within planted prairie units as possible. Along each transect I sampled 10 one-quarter meter square sampling areas (quadrats), which were placed randomly on the left or right side of the transect and randomly along the first or second half meter within each of the ten one-meter intervals of the transect. Thus, within each remnant I assessed mean C from a total of twenty subsamples (ten each along two transects). In addition, eight prairie remnants on the same landscape were sampled in the same way, with the exception that a few transects were repositioned to be in burned portions of otherwise unburned remnants. These remnants do generally tend drier than the plantings, because they are located on parts of the landscape that weren’t arable, ranging from dry to borderline mesic at toe-of-slope positions. All field work was conducted between May 15 and May 27, 2025. With two exceptions (one remnant and one planting), all sampling areas had burned since the 2024 growing season.

Each prairie planting and remnant mean C value was calculated by taking the average of all twenty individual subsample quadrat mean C values. This procedure produces mean C weighted by the frequency of species in the quadrat subsamples; species that occurred in many subsample quadrats had more influence, and those that occurred in only one or a few subsamples had proportionately less. This is of greater interest than mean C calculated from the total list of species in a given planting or remnant, because it distinguishes and assigns higher mean C to areas that have conservative species represented frequently at small scales throughout compared to areas where conservative species are detected at the scale of all sampling within a prairie planting (here the five square meters of total area among quadrats in a unit) or remnant but are sparse such that they are only infrequently detected in subsamples.

Sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) in September after being planted as a plug in moist, sandy savanna in May. It has already spread out by rhizomes several inches in all directions.

Findings

Figures 1-4 are photographs from the plantings and remnants that I sampled. The results were not surprising given how visually impressive the plantings are. Prairie planting mean C values were similar to and fell within the range of mean C values observed on nearby remnants. Many species normally only encountered in remnant, old-growth prairies like hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens), wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum), porcupine grass (Hesperostipa spartea), Leiberg’s panic grass (Dichanthelium leibergii), false toadflax (Comandra umbellata) and prairie violet (Viola pedatifida) were encountered in at least one planted prairie. The blog post associated with this article provides a list of all 136 plant species encountered in plantings and remnants during sampling and the number of remnants and plantings they were detected in. Keep in mind that this list does not capture all species present a planted or remnant prairie unit; it captures species abundant and distributed enough to be detected within the five square meters of total sampling in each unit, or sparse species that I was just lucky to detect. Most species that were detected even once would have been apparent to a knowledgeable observer strolling through a unit.

Frequency-weighted mean C among the eight prairie plantings sampled averaged 4.75, which indicates recovery of ecological integrity on par with many remnant natural areas. Values for individual plantings ranged from 4.22 to 5.25. Mean C among the remnants averaged 4.80 and ranged from 3.83 to 5.76. There was not evidence for a statistical difference in mean C between the plantings and the remnants (Wilcoxon test of median difference due to small sample and non-normal data, W = 33, p = 0.96; inference from T-test of mean difference is the same). The data is plotted in figure 5. It should be noted that there are nonetheless differences between the planted and remnant prairies. For example, Richardson’s sedge (Carex richardsonii), Mead’s sedge (Carex meadii), yellow stargrass (Hypoxis hirsuta), violet wood sorrel, (Oxalis violacea) and Great Plains lady’s tresses orchid (Spiranthes magnicamporum) were only observed in remnants. Some of this may be attributed to these species not being included in planting seed mixes or included in only very small amounts. The absence of some of the more xeric species may be attributed to differences in conditions between remnant and planted prairies. In particular, the driest parts of the remnant prairies are drier than most or any parts of the planted prairies.

The success of these plantings can be attributed to several factors, including the following:

Seeding was diverse, including many conservative species associated with old-growth and species that flower early in the season and are often omitted from plantings (e.g., wood betony, Pedicularis canadensis; prairie blue-eyed grass, Sisyrinchium campestre; false toadflax, Comandra umbellata; etc.).

A vigorous growth of annual and biennial weeds was not released from the seed bank, because broadcast non-selective herbicide spray and cultivation for site preparation were avoided and nonnative, cool-season grasses provided a sort of cover crop as well as immediate fuel for burning.

It’s possible that soils and associated microbial communities in established nonnative, cool-season grass sods had recovered to a degree prior to planting. This needs research.

The existence of remnant prairies nearby on the landscape allowed for recolonization of the plantings by specialist insects and also potentially some plants and microbes (bacteria and fungi).

Wood betony (Pedicularis canadensis) has been used to prevent over-dominance by tall, warm-season grasses and is abundant in the planted prairies.

Very importantly, annual or near annual early spring (mostly dormant) fire created and maintained a thatch-free environment for prairie seeds to germinate and establish and in turn disperse more seeds. Frequent fire can also reduce nitrogen availability by volatilizing nitrogen out of the system and producing charcoal that binds some of what is not volatilized; most conservative species have an advantage under conditions of low nutrient availability due to greater efficiency and/or retention of nutrients, and a greater propensity for mutualisms like mycorrhizal associations that can alleviate nutrient limitations. Thus, fire has favored elements of the developing prairie community over time and disfavored relatively opportunistic, weedy species. This is an important factor regardless of method of site preparation. Very frequent dormant season burning is the common denominator of the most successful reconstruction and restoration projects I have encountered.

I did calculate overall mean C for each unit using the mean of coefficients of all species detected among all twenty subsamples. Values calculated at this somewhat larger scale were modestly greater for all plantings and six out of eight remnants (Mean C = 5.15 for plantings and 4.91 for remnants). There are two possible explanations, which are not mutually exclusive. One is that conservative species are still under-represented at small scales due to sparseness or patchiness, implying that plantings may continue to coalesce and stitch back together as plants spread vegetatively or by seed. Likewise, remnants may continue to recover from past land use and fire exclusion with stewardship. The other is that individual conservative species may be more localized within units due to relative specialization along environmental gradients compared to less conservative species, which would result in more conservative species being detected at larger scales. Non-native species like smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and less conservative native species were often sparsely present across many or all subsamples in a unit, and at least some conservative species within units were only detected in positions at either end of or in the middle along transects which were laid out across physical gradients from relative upslope to downslope positions.

While the planted prairies are still subtly different from remnant prairies, insofar as “native systems are defined substantially by their conservative biota,” (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994), these plantings appear well on their way to recovery. With time, restoration of stabilizing dormant season fire, and efforts to compensate for limiting natural dispersal into sites (and more than a little weed pulling, cutting brush, etc.), it seems almost as though these ecosystems want to reconstitute themselves. This gives me great optimism for these sites and others like them where constant and thoughtful stewards are at work giving them a chance.

dan_carter_frequency_weighted_mean_c_plot

References

1. Swink, Floyd, and Gerould Wilhelm. “Plants of the Chicago region.” Indiana Academy of Science, 1994.

This article appeared in the Spring 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.

How to Deal With Toxic Weeds: Grecian Foxglove

by Cassidy Coulson | Jan 9, 2026 | Management Methods

How to Deal With Toxic Weeds: Grecian Foxglove

Management Methods for Removing Harmful Invasive Plants

Article by Josie Clausen
January 9, 2026

Grecian Foxglove (Digitalis lanata). Photo from University of Minnesota extension page.

Removing invasive species can be backbreaking labor, pulling deep taproots, hauling branches and logs, and possible risk of exposure to herbicides. However, most plants do not fight back quite as bad as Grecian Foxglove (Digitalis lanata), a flowering herbaceous plant native to Europe and North Africa.

Foxgloves contain cardiac glycosides, a class of organic compounds that is highly toxic to humans and other animals. Exposure to these cardiac glycosides can decrease heart rate and increase cardiac contractility, high exposure can be fatal.

To safely remove the invasive, long sleeves and gloves must be worn, due to the absorption of the chemicals when it comes into contact with skin. Mowing the plants before they go to seed can help to prevent spread as the plants are short-lived and only live a few seasons. Best practice is to leave the removed plant material on the homeowners property due to the risks involved in moving invasive plants. However that might not always be possible because of the toxicity. Livestock or pets who may munch on the plant material could be severely poisoned and possibly die. Burning Foxglove is not recommended because the effects of the chemicals are potent when inhaled.

When moving cut invasive plants containing the seeds and root rhizomes is essential. Securing plant material in bags or containers while transporting to disposal sites ensures the plant will not be spread. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency website under the Materials and Waste Management page has a list of public community composting sites. These removal techniques are recommended for other invasives, toxic or not. Be safe when dealing with Grecian Foxglove and call poison control if there is any possibility of contact or contamination. This is regulated as a Prohibited species in Wisconsin under NR-40, which should be reviewed by anyone planning to transport Grecian foxglove plant material for any reason. To learn more, click here: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/nr/001/40.pdf

Sources

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/cardiac-glycoside

https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/disposalnoxweed

https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/invasives/noxious-weeds.pdf

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-us/community-composting

https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/grecian-foxglove

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.