DOCSLIB.ORG

Structural Attributes of Schizachyrium Scoparium in Restored Texas Blackland Prairies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structural Attributes of Schizachyrium Scoparium in Restored Texas Blackland Prairies View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 2004 Structural Attributes of Schizachyrium scoparium in Restored Texas Blackland Prairies Justin D. Derner USDA-ARS, [email protected] H. Wayne Polley USDA-ARS, [email protected] Hyrum B. Johnson USDA-ARS Charles R. Tischler USDA-ARS Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub Part of the Agricultural Science Commons Derner, Justin D.; Polley, H. Wayne; Johnson, Hyrum B.; and Tischler, Charles R., "Structural Attributes of Schizachyrium scoparium in Restored Texas Blackland Prairies" (2004). Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 450. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/450 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Structural Attributes of Schizachyrium scoparium in Restored Texas Blackland Prairies Justin D. Derner,1,2 H. Wayne Polley,3 Hyrum B. Johnson,3 and Charles R. Tischler3 Abstract than in the native prairie. Mean basal area of plants was 80163% greater in the 17- and 23-year restored prairies Structural attributes of the C4, perennial bunchgrass Schizachyrium scoparium in restored prairies may be compared with the native and 8-year restored prairies. affected by the time since restoration. One hundred plants Percentage of hollow crowns and fragmentation was each in 8-, 17-, and 23-year-old restored prairies and a smallest in the 8-year restored prairie, largest in the 17- native Texas Blackland prairie were assessed for the and 23-year restored prairies, and intermediate in the native presence/absence and diameter of a hollow crown (i.e., prairie. Tiller density exhibited inverse second-order poly- dead center portion), degree of fragmentation, plant height, nomial decreases with increasing plant basal area for all and tiller density. Structural attributes of S. scoparium prairies. In contrast to tiller density, diameter of hollow plants were generally (1) different between recent (8 years) crowns increased logarithmically with increasing plant basal and older (17 and 23 years) restored prairies (2) similar area. Structural attributes of S. scoparium in restored between the 17- and 23-year-old restored prairies, and (3) prairies changed predictably with age, despite growing in more similar between the 8- and 17-year restored prairies different communities. and the native, remnant prairie than between the 23-year restored prairie and the native prairie. Plants were shorter Key words: bunchgrass, fragmentation, hollow crown, in restored prairies, regardless of time since restoration, tussock. Introduction attributes of S. scoparium may provide insight into evalu- The Texas Blackland prairie, the southernmost extension ating the success of restoration efforts on ecosystem struc- of the true prairie, originally encompassed approximately ture and function of restored prairies. Structural attributes 4.2 million ha. However, less than 1% of the original area of S. scoparium plants have been previously evaluated remains and this exists as highly fragmented, small in response to inter- and intraspecific competition (Briske (<10 ha) remnants (Riskind & Collins 1975). Restoration & Butler 1989), plant size and distribution (Briske & efforts, prompted by greater conservation and preserva- Anderson 1990), above- and belowground resources tion awareness, have increased in this highly human- (Derner & Briske 1999), and grazing (Anderson & Briske modified ecosystem. Because Schizachyrium scoparium 1995; Pfeiffer & Hartnett 1995). (little bluestem) is the dominant, perennial species of Schizachyrium scoparium plants are characterized by this ecosystem, restoration efforts often target successful the compact spatial arrangement of tillers within individ- establishment of this species. Yet, information pertaining to ual plants and the absence of rhizomes or stolons for structural attributes (e.g., plant basal area, height and frag- rapid lateral spread. Developmental morphology and mentation) of this C4, bunchgrass (tussock and caespitose) resulting structural changes are driven by the growth and species in chronosequences of restored prairies is limited. recruitment of juvenile tillers within tiller hierarchies, Because plantings in prairie restorations result in an which are comprised of three connected generations in initial cohort of similar-aged plants, a chronosequence of S. scoparium (Welker et al. 1991; Williams & Briske restored prairies provides an opportunity to evaluate struc- 1991; Derner & Briske 1998). These tiller hierarchies tural attributes of plants with known maximum age and become separated with increasing plant size and age compare with the expected architectural development of because initial tiller generations die and decompose bunchgrasses (Gatsuk et al. 1980). Understanding the (Gatsuk et al. 1980; Olson & Richards 1988). As a result influence of time since restoration on the structural of this process, hollow crowns are formed in the center region of individual plants. Once this hollow crown is extended to the plant periphery, rapid fragmentation of 1 USDA-ARS, High Plains Grasslands Research Station, Cheyenne, WY 82009, plants occurs (Gatsuk et al. 1980). Fragmentation con- U.S.A. 2Address correspondence to J. D. Derner, email [email protected] tributes to population maintenance of bunchgrasses 3USDA-ARS, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX (Lord 1993; Danin & Orshan 1995), although other studies 76502, U.S.A. suggest that populations of bunchgrasses are maintained Ó 2004 Society for Ecological Restoration International by reproduction from seed (Vorontzova & Zaugolnova 80 Restoration Ecology Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8084 MARCH 2004 Schizachyrium scoparium in Restored Tallgrass Prairies 1985; Zhukova & Ermakova 1985). Determining the level material sources, and years in which seed hay was of fragmentation of S. scoparium plants along a chronose- harvested for each restoration exhibited average or above quence of restored prairies would provide information average precipitation. relevant to the potential self-sustainability of these Preliminary data from three of the prairies (excluding populations. the 23-year-old prairie) indicate that peak standing crop in The objective of this study was to determine whether the 8- and 17-year-old restored prairies was 5057% of structural attributes of S. scoparium plants differed that in the native prairie (6500 kg/ha) (Polley et al., unpub- between recent (8 years) and older (17 and 23 years) lished data). Species composition of S. scoparium was restorations and a native, remnant Texas Blackland greater in the restored (4468%) than native prairies prairie. We hypothesized that (1) plant height, size and (34%), while forb composition exhibited the opposite occurrence of hollow crowns, and degree of plant fragmen- trend with 1318% forbs in the restored prairies and 35% tation would be greater in older than recently restored forb composition in the native prairie. In addition, species prairies and (2) tiller density (number of tillers per unit richness was 1.62.7-fold greater in the native prairie basal area) would be lower in older than recently restored (15.6 species per 0.5 m2). prairies. This chronosequence of restored prairies with plants of known maximum age provides an opportunity to estimate age structure of the population of S. scoparium Methods plants in the native prairie using the assumption that plant Five 20-m transects were randomly located in each prairie basal area is a surrogate for plant age. The utility of this on 1922 June 2000. The nearest Schizachyrium scoparium study from a reclamation perspective is the potential for plant every meter along each transect (20 plants per trans- determining when a restored Texas Blackland prairie may ect, 100 plants total for each prairie) was qualitatively have similar demographic and structural composition of assessed for the presence/absence of a hollow crown the dominant, perennial grass S. scoparium as found in a (i.e. dead center portion) and degree of fragmentation native prairie. and quantitatively assessed for plant height, tiller number, basal circumference, and diameter of the hollow crown. Degree of fragmentation was assigned ‘‘none’’ if the plant Study Area was intact and if there was no evidence of physical separ- This study was conducted on native and restored mesic ation between neighboring tiller hierarchies, ‘‘present’’ if tallgrass prairies in the Blackland tallgrass prairie region there was evidence of physical separation, and ‘‘complete’’ near Riesel, TX (31° 280 N; 96°520 W). Long-term (62-year), if the majority of neighboring hierarchies were physically mean annual precipitation is 89.6 (±22.0, 1 SD) cm, with separated. peaks in May and October. Precipitation was above aver- Neither the restored nor native prairies were replicated, age in 2 of the 3 years (1997 and 1998) before this investi- but this is a unique situation with a chronosequence of gation, but precipitation in 1999 was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan April2006 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND Wll...DLIFE SERVICE P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 In Reply Refer To: R2/NWRS-PLN JUN 0 5 2006 Dear Reader: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proud to present to you the enclosed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). This CCP and its supporting documents outline a vision for the future of the Refuge and specifies how this unique area can be maintained to conserve indigenous wildlife and their habitats for the enjoyment of the public for generations to come. Active community participation is vitally important to manage the Refuge successfully. By reviewing this CCP and visiting the Refuge, you will have opportunities to learn more about its purpose and prospects. We invite you to become involved in its future. The Service would like to thank all the people who participated in the planning and public involvement process. Comments you submitted helped us prepare a better CCP for the future of this unique place. Sincerely, Tom Baca Chief, Division of Planning Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Sherman, Texas Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Planning Region 2 500 Gold SW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Comprehensive conservation plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Illinois and Percentage of Prairie
    Historic Illinois and Percentage of Prairie The tall grass prairie is found in the easternmost third of the Great Plains. It receives the most rainfall, averaging 30-40 inches a year. The tallgrass prairie is predominantly made up of Indian grass, switchgrass, and especially big blues stem, which can grow up to 12 feet high and a half an inch a day. The tallgrass prairie is the most lush , with much taller and denser grasses than the western prairie. An acre of intact tallgrass hosts somewhere between 200 and 400 species of native plants—3 out of 4 of them wildflowers. Each week from April to September, about a dozen new kinds of flowers come into bloom. An acre of good tallgrass may have 5 to 10 acres of leaf surfaces and produce 5000 pounds of forage a year. Grazing cattle typically gain 2-3 pounds a day on these grasslands. Today, what was the tallgrass prairie is now the ‘cornbelt’. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~kenr/percentprairie.gif Illinois Symbols The land that became the state of Illinois was covered by prairie grasses. Big Bluestem may have been the most widespread and abundant grass throughout the true prairie. Big Bluestem grows in such tall and dense stands that it often prevents other grasses from growing around it by shading them out. In the past this resulted in large areas of almost pure big bluestem in the prairies. Big bluestem grows to the height of between three and twelve feet (one to three meters). It has tall slender stems. The grass is green throughout most much of the summer ; the stem turns to blue-purple as it matures; thus the name bluestem.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Landscaping in Massachusetts Plant List
    Coastal Landscaping in Massachusetts Plant List This PDF document provides additional information to supplement the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Coastal Landscaping website. The plants listed below are good choices for the rugged coastal conditions of Massachusetts. The Coastal Beach Plant List, Coastal Dune Plant List, and Coastal Bank Plant List give recommended species for each specified location (some species overlap because they thrive in various conditions). Photos and descriptions of selected species can be found on the following pages: • Grasses and Perennials • Shrubs and Groundcovers • Trees CZM recommends using native plants wherever possible. The vast majority of the plants listed below are native (which, for purposes of this fact sheet, means they occur naturally in eastern Massachusetts). Certain non-native species with specific coastal landscaping advantages that are not known to be invasive have also been listed. These plants are labeled “not native,” and their state or country of origin is provided. (See definitions for native plant species and non-native plant species at the end of this fact sheet.) Coastal Beach Plant List Plant List for Sheltered Intertidal Areas Sheltered intertidal areas (between the low-tide and high-tide line) of beach, marsh, and even rocky environments are home to particular plant species that can tolerate extreme fluctuations in water, salinity, and temperature. The following plants are appropriate for these conditions along the Massachusetts coast. Black Grass (Juncus gerardii) native Marsh Elder (Iva frutescens) native Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) native Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Spartina patens) native Sea Lavender (Limonium carolinianum or nashii) native Spike Grass (Distichlis spicata) native Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) native Plant List for a Dry Beach Dry beach areas are home to plants that can tolerate wind, wind-blown sand, salt spray, and regular interaction with waves and flood waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Mixedgrass Prairie Ecological System (Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion Version)
    CENTRAL MIXEDGRASS PRAIRIE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (CENTRAL SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE ECOREGION VERSION) ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT Draft of June 29, 2007 Prepared by: Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University 254 General Services Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 A.1 Classification Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A.2 Ecological System Description ................................................................................ 5 A.2.1 Environment....................................................................................................... 5 A.2.2 Vegetation & Ecosystem.................................................................................... 6 A.2.3 Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 8 A.2.4 Landscape......................................................................................................... 10 A.2.5 Size................................................................................................................... 11 A.3 Ecological Integrity................................................................................................ 12 A.3.1 Threats.............................................................................................................. 12 A.3.2 Justification of Metrics....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Texas
    Ecoregions of Texas 23 Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 26 Southwestern Tablelands 30 Edwards Plateau 23a Chihuahuan Desert Slopes 26a Canadian/Cimarron Breaks 30a Edwards Plateau Woodland 23b Montane Woodlands 26b Flat Tablelands and Valleys 30b Llano Uplift 24 Chihuahuan Deserts 26c Caprock Canyons, Badlands, and Breaks 30c Balcones Canyonlands 24a Chihuahuan Basins and Playas 26d Semiarid Canadian Breaks 30d Semiarid Edwards Plateau 24b Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands 27 Central Great Plains 31 Southern Texas Plains 24c Low Mountains and Bajadas 27h Red Prairie 31a Northern Nueces Alluvial Plains 24d Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands 27i Broken Red Plains 31b Semiarid Edwards Bajada 24e Stockton Plateau 27j Limestone Plains 31c Texas-Tamaulipan Thornscrub 25 High Plains 29 Cross Timbers 31d Rio Grande Floodplain and Terraces 25b Rolling Sand Plains 29b Eastern Cross Timbers 25e Canadian/Cimarron High Plains 29c Western Cross Timbers 25i Llano Estacado 29d Grand Prairie 25j Shinnery Sands 29e Limestone Cut Plain 25k Arid Llano Estacado 29f Carbonate Cross Timbers 25b 26a 26a 25b 25e Level III ecoregion 26d 300 60 120 mi Level IV ecoregion 26a Amarillo 27h 60 0 120 240 km County boundary 26c State boundary Albers equal area projection 27h 25i 26b 25j 27h 35g 35g 26b Wichita 29b 35a 35c Lubbock 26c Falls 33d 27i 29d Sherman 35a 25j Denton 33d 35c 32a 33f 35b 25j 26b Dallas 33f 35a 35b 27h 29f Fort 35b Worth 33a 26b Abilene 32c Tyler 29b 24c 29c 35b 23a Midland 26c 30d 35a El Paso 24a 23b Odessa 35b 24a 24b 25k 27j 33f Nacogdoches 24d Waco Pecos 25j
    [Show full text]
  • A Prairie Ecosystem the Kansas Grassland Biome Is Divided Into Tallgrass, Mixed-Grass, and Shortgrass Prairies
    A Prairie Ecosystem The Kansas grassland biome is divided into tallgrass, mixed-grass, and shortgrass prairies. ​ ​Emporia, KS is located in the Tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Before settlement, the tallgrass prairie occupied a north-south strip which encompassed the eastern third of Kansas. The tallgrass prairie exists today since much the land is not farmable due to terrain (slope, rock layers, soil depth, etc.). The grasses can grow in excess of six feet tall during moist years if they reside in deep soils. The annual precipitation, or rainfall, in this region exceeds 30 inches. The original tallgrass prairie spanned almost 250 million acres. Today, about four percent remains with the largest areas being the Flint Hills of Kansas and the Osage Hills of Oklahoma. Examples of grasses found in tallgrass prairies include big bluestem, indian grass, switchgrass, and eastern gamagrass. The sun is the main source of energy for every living thing on earth. An organism that makes its own food from the sun is called a ​producer​. Examples of producers in the prairie are grasses and wildflowers because they use the sun to make their own food through a process called photosynthesis. An organism that depends on others for food is called a ​consumer​. Examples of consumers in the prairie include coyotes, snakes, mice and prairie chickens because they hunt or scavenge for their food. An organism that breaks down materials in dead organisms is called a decomposer​. Examples of decomposers in the prairie are worms. Recycling happens in the prairie through decomposition. Recycling means to reuse something once it has died or has been thrown away.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Plains Ecosystems: Past, Present, and Future
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2004 Great Plains Ecosystems: Past, Present, and Future Fred B. Samson United States Forest Service Fritz L. Knopf United States Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Wayne Ostlie The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Samson, Fred B.; Knopf, Fritz L.; and Ostlie, Wayne, "Great Plains Ecosystems: Past, Present, and Future" (2004). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 45. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/45 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Ecosystems: Past, Present, and Future Fred B. Samson, Fritz L. Knopf, & Wayne R. Ostlie 6 SPECIALCOVERAGE ...eat Plains ecosystems: _ _ t, present, and future HH[[~dIed B. Samson, Fritz L. Knopf, and e R. Ostlie sts that the main bodies of North American prairie (i.e., the tall- grass, mixed, and shortgrass) are among the most endangered resources on the con- tinent. The purpose of this paper is to provide a past and present biological base- line by which to understand North American prairies and to provide a platform for future conservation. Events both immediate to the end of the Pleistocene and his- toric suggest that the present grassland conditions are different from those within which most of the grassland organisms evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Broad Analysis of Fifteen Sites in the Tall-Grass Prairie of Oklahoma
    39 A BROAD ANALYSIS OF FIFTEEN SITES IN THE TALL-GRASS PRAIRIE OF OKLAHOMA Jan Tarr*, Greg Botkin*, E. L. Rice*, Ellen Carpenter†, and Mark Hart† *Department of Botany and Microbiology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 †School of Biological Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Tall-grass prairie vegetation was analyzed in 15 Oklahoma counties. Andropogon scoparius Michx. was the most important grass in all geographic regions, but its percent composition was inversely related to the amount of precipitation. The percent composition of Andropogon Gerardi Vitman differed little between the western and central sections but increased markedly in the eastern section. Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash and Panicum virgatum L. had their highest percent composition in the central region with an intermediate amount of precipitation. Diversity and basal cover did not change from west to east. INTRODUCTION Little (1) listed the prairie dominants of Muskogee county as Andropogon Gerardi, A. scoparius, and Koeleria cristata*. Nease (3) listed four dominants in a tall-grass prairie in south-central Oklahoma, A. scoparius, A. Hallii, Panicum virgatum, and Sorghastrum nutans. Kelting (4) described the dominants in a virgin prairie in McClain county as A. scoparius, P. virgatum, and S. nutans. Rice (5) listed the dominants in a tall-grass community in Marshall county as S. nutans, P. virgatum, and A. Gerardi. Quantitative analyses of isolated tall-grass prairie stands have been reported for most geographic regions of Oklahoma, but no uniform procedures were followed and no accurate comparisons could be made of diversity, basal area, and percent composition (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
    [Show full text]
  • Selecting, Planting, and Managing Grasses for Vegetative Barriers
    Natural Resources Conservation Service Plant Materials Program Washington, D.C. July 2021 Plant Materials Technical Note 6 Selecting, Planting, and Managing Grasses for Vegetative Barriers Selecting, Planting, and Managing Grasses for Vegetative Barriers Acknowledgements Issued July 2021 Plant Materials Technical Note 6 was prepared by: Jon K. Allison, Farm Foreman, Jamie L. Whitten Plant Materials Center, Coffeeville, MS; Joel Douglas, Plant Materials Specialist, Central National Technology Support Center, Fort Worth, TX; Heather Dial, Plant Materials Specialist, West National Technology Support Center, Portland, OR; Steve Woodruff, Agronomist, East National Technology Support Center, Greensboro, NC; and John Englert, National Program Leader-Plant Materials, Washington, D.C. Plant Materials Centers (PMC) contributing to the development of Plant Materials Technical Note No. 6: Jimmy Carter PMC, Americus, GA; Lockeford PMC, Lockeford, CA; Hoolehua PMC, Hoolehua, HI; Aberdeen PMC, Aberdeen, ID; Manhattan PMC, Manhattan, KS; Norman A. Berg National PMC, Beltsville, MD; Elsberry PMC, Elsberry, MO; Bismarck PMC, Bismarck, ND; Cape May PMC, Cape May Court House, NJ; E. “Kika” de la Garza PMC, Kingsville, TX; and Pullman PMC, Pullman, WA. The technical note benefitted from review by other NRCS technical staff. Suggested citation: NRCS National Plant Materials Program. 2021. Plant Materials Technical Note 6: Selecting, Planting, and Managing Grasses for Vegetative Barriers. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. In accordance
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Prairie Roadsides: the Iowa Example
    Kansas State University Libraries New Prairie Press 2011 – Freedom’s Frontier in the Flint Hills Symphony in the Flint Hills Field Journal (Laurie J. Hamilton, Editor) Native Prairie Roadsides: The Iowa Example Daryl D. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sfh Recommended Citation Smith, Daryl D. (2011). "Native Prairie Roadsides: The Iowa Example," Symphony in the Flint Hills Field Journal. https://newprairiepress.org/sfh/2011/nature/7 To order hard copies of the Field Journals, go to shop.symphonyintheflinthills.org. The Field Journals are made possible in part with funding from the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation. This is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symphony in the Flint Hills Field Journal by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Native Prairie Roadsides: The Iowa Example “No doubt each of us relates to certain aspects of the prairie that have special meaning. For me, the plants of the prairie invoke feelings of awe and wonderment as well as continuity with the past. Nothing is more relaxing than lying on your back in late summer and viewing a deep blue sky through the outstretched turkeyfeet of bluestem.” 1 Most original roads in Iowa and Kansas followed existing trails and traversed the tallgrass prairie. As long as prairie was adjacent to the roadside, seed was available to maintain prairie vegetation in disturbed rights-of-way. As the human population and Management (IRVM) programs that KANSAS TURNPIKE agriculture increased, cropland replaced combined native vegetation, reduced Ron Klataske the adjacent prairies.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Baseline Genetic Data on Androppgon Gerardii (Big (Anderson, 1991)
    0 Gustafson . Gibson, Nickrent, page I INTRODUCTION Tallgrass prairies occur in the eastern portion of the North American Prairie biome, with Andropogon gerardii Vitman (big bluestem), Sorghastrurn nutans (L .) Nash (Indian grass), and Panicum virgatum L . (swrtchgrass) dominating the vegetation Assessment of Baseline Genetic Data on Androppgon gerardii (Big (Anderson, 1991) . Prior to settlement by Europeans, Illinois contained approximately 8 .9 Bluestem), Sorghastrum nutans (Indian Grass), and Dalea purpurea (Purple Prairie Clover)-among Remnant and Restored Illinois Tallgrass million hectares of tallgrass prairie. Despite its heritage and its sobriquet as the prairie Mesic Prairies and Selected Grass Cultivars . state, less than 0.01% of the original high quality prairie remains (Robertson and Schwartz, 1994) . Prairies have been preserved because they are an important part of Illinois' natural . The majority of the remnant prairies remaining today consist of Report submitted to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and cultural heritage Natural Heritage Division abandoned pioneer cemeteries, railroad right-of-ways, and lands unsuitable for agriculture . A number of sites in the state have been restored by seeding prairie species, By with more than 90% of the projects using local genotypes (ecotypes) (Schramm, 1990) . Choice of ecotypes was desirable because : 1) restoration includes the genetic and Danny J . Gustafson, David J. Gibson, and Daniel L. Nickrent Department of Plant Biology structural components of the historical community, 2) natural selection has presumably Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 52901-6509 determined the most fit ecotype, and 3) the preservation of local gene pools will maintain genetic diversity at the landscape level . However, very little empirical data are available November 1997 documenting the existence of ecotypes in Illinois .
    [Show full text]