Anderson County Prairie Preserve

Home , Amblyscirtes belli, Amblyscirtes linda, Anaea andria, Anatrytone logan, Ancyloxypha numitor, Atalopedes campestris

MONITORING AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED: ANDERSON COUNTY PRAIRIE PRESERVE

Open-file Report No. 164 August 15, 2010

Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory and KU Field Station Kansas Biological Survey 2101 Constant Avenue Lawrence, KS 66047-3759

MONITORING AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED: ANDERSON COUNTY PRAIRIE PRESERVE

Cover Photo: Hay Meadow at Anderson County Prairie Preserve. Photo by Vaughn B. Salisbury, 2009.

Citation: Busby, W. H., W. D. Kettle, J. M. Delisle, R. Moranz, S. Roels, and V. B. Salisbury. 2010. Monitoring and Habitat Management for Species of Greatest Conservation Need: Anderson County Prairie Preserve. Open-file Report No. 164. Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS. 99 pp.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...……………………………………………………….…...ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..…….………………………………………………………………...iii

ABSTRACT ...... iiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. PURPOSE ...... 1 1.2. OBJECTIVES ...... 2

CHAPTER 2: SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 6 2.1. SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 6 2.2. ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE ...... 6 2.3. HISTORIC CONDITIONS ...... 8 2.4. RECENT LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT ...... 8

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 11 3.1. PHYSICAL AND VEGETATION MONITORING ...... 11 3.2. MONITORING: MULT-SPECIES ANIMAL PROTOCOLS ...... 19 3.3 MONITORING: GCN SPECIES ...... 19 3.4. HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ...... 23 3.5. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ...... 23

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 24 4.1. MONITORING: VEGETATION AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 24 4.2. MONITORING AND INVENTORY: ANIMALS ...... 29 4.3 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED ACCOUNTS ...... 38 4.4. HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL ...... 42 4.5. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ...... 43

LITERATURE CITED ...... 44

APPENDIX A. BUTTERFLY MONITORING: REPORT FOR 2008 ...... 46

APPENDIX B. BUTTERFLY MONITORING: REPORT FOR 2009 ...... 76

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 1.1. Tallgrass Prairie Species of Greatest Conservation Need……………………………..4 Table 3.1. List of forb species ...... 19 Table 4.1. Summary data for vegetative structure (vertical) for 2008 and 2009 ...... 27 Table 4.2. Summary data for vegetative structure (horizontal) for 2008 and 2009 ...... 28 Table 4.3. Frequency of species encountered in conservative forb surveys ...... 30 Table 4.4. Greater Prairie-Chicken lek survey results ...... 33 Table 4.5. June bird survey transect results ...... 34 Table 4.6. Summary data for breeding bird survey ...... 35 Table 4.7. Summary data for anuran calling surveys ...... 37

Figures

Figure 1.1. Location of Anderson County Prairie Preserve ...... 2 Figure 1.2. Location of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve ...... 3 Figure 2.1. Untilled landscapes of the Osage Plains/Flint Hills Ecoregion ...... 7 Figure 2.2. Map, designations and summary information for management units ...... 9 Figure 3.1. Locations of repeat photography points ...... 12 Figure 3.2. Locations of transects for vertical structure of vegetation ...... 16 Figure 3.3. Locations of forb transects on core area ...... 17 Figure 3.4. Locations of forb transect on South Tract ...... 18 Figure 3.5. Locations of forb transect on North Tract ...... 18 Figure 3.6. Location of breeding bird transects ...... 21 Figure 3.7. Route of breeding bird survey and anuran survey ...... 22 Figure 4.1. Photopoint photos from Unit 13 (hay meadow) ...... 25 Figure 4.2. Photopoint photos from Unit 1 (grazed) ...... 26 Figure 4.3. Mean values for number of conservative forbs per plot ...... 31 Figure 4.4. Locations of prairie chicken leks ...... 32 Figure 4.5. Bird abundance in 2006-07 and 2008-09 ...... 35

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work for this project, ―Monitoring and Habitat Management for Species of Greatest Conservation Need: Anderson County Prairie Preserve,‖ was carried out under a subgrant (Project T-22) of the State Wildlife Grants program, a federal program through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. It was administered by the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks. Special thanks to Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks employees Carl Magnuson and Bob Culbertson.

Many individuals worked on or assisted with this project, whether as field workers, preserve management staff, office support personnel or technical advisors. They include Craig Freeman, Bruce Johanning, Hillary Loring, Jim Minnerath, Galen Pittman, Gina Ross and Roger Wells. We are grateful the staff of the Kansas Chapter of the Nature Conservancy for their support and encouragement and to other property owners who gave us permission to visit their land.

iii

ABSTRACT

Management responsibility of the Anderson County Prairie (ACP) Preserve (1370 acres), purchased by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 1996 - 2003, was transferred to the Kansas Biological Survey (KBS) in 2006. As part of a plan to initiate conservation management at ACP Preserve, a two-year project was undertaken with three objectives: 1) establish baseline survey and monitoring of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (GCN) and vegetation, 2) control invasive species, and 3) initiate education and outreach with local landowners and natural resource professionals.

Three vegetation and habitat-related field protocols were conducted: 1) repeat photography points were established at 63 camera locations across 16 units at the Preserve; 2) vertical and horizontal components of vegetative structure were measured in uplands as a predictor of grassland bird habitat; and 3) floristic quality was measured by quantifying the distribution and abundance of conservative forbs in hay meadow and grazed units.

Surveys and monitoring for 19 Species of GCN were conducted on and near the Preserve in 2008 and 2009. Grassland breeding bird abundance was measured using line transects in the core area of the Preserve. Information on summer bird populations in the area surrounding the Preserve was obtained using North American Breeding Bird Survey methodology. Anuran populations were assessed in the spring along a 15-mile driving route. Butterfly populations on and near the Preserve were inventoried with a variety of methods. For GCN Species that were not detectable with the previous methods, species specific inventories were conducted under appropriate field conditions. Overall, 13 GCN Species were documented on the Preserve and 16 GCN Species were observed in the nearby area, most associated with tallgrass prairie habitats. Eight of 12 GCN bird species appear to have healthy populations in the study area, while others, such as Greater Prairie-Chicken and Loggerhead Shrike, have small populations. Non-bird GCN Species with large populations on the Preserve and surrounding area include Crawfish Frog, Massasauga, and Regal Fritillary.

Habitat and invasive species management efforts supported by this project were focused on control of the noxious weed, sericea lespedeza. A private contractor and crew surveyed about 1200 acres of the Preserve (all but the North Tract) for sericea lespedeza in July 2008 and treated all plants detected. Two sites with large sericea lespedeza infestations were found, one in the northeast part of the core area of the Preserve and one in the South Tract. Overall, this species is not widespread on the Preserve.

A total of nine education and outreach activities occurred during the project period. These included an information and planning meeting with natural resource professionals (May 2009), field tours of the Preserve for researchers from the University of Kansas (November 2008) and Kansas State University (May 2009), and a public program held in Garnett on grassland management by NRCS, KDWP and KBS personnel.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE

Tallgrass prairie is among the most endangered ecosystems in North America with an estimated loss of 95% over the past 150 years. Kansas hosts most of the remaining tallgrass prairie (approximately 80%), the majority of it located in the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas. Historically, the major cause of tallgrass prairie loss was conversion to agriculture because of the fertile soils associated with this ecological system. Today, tallgrass prairie continues to be lost to development and degradation. Only a very small proportion (<1%) of remaining tallgrass prairie is in conservation ownership. Because of these and other factors, conservation of tallgrass prairie and its component species is a conservation priority. In the report ―A Future for Kansas Wildlife, Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan‖ (KDWP 2005), tallgrass prairie is identified as one of the top priority ecosystems in the state. In addition, the report identifies species of greatest conservation need (GCN species) in tallgrass prairie, broken down into Tier I, II, and III species, in descending order of conservation need. To promote the conservation of GCN species, it is critical to gain a better understanding of where these species occur, their population status, habitat requirements, and threats.

Anderson County Prairie (ACP) Preserve (or the Preserve) (Figures 1.1 and 1.2) is located in the largest remaining block of tallgrass prairie in the Osage Cuestas physiographic province in Kansas. Unlike the Flint Hills, where shallow soils and rock limit the extent of cultivated agriculture, the Osage Cuestas have been extensively converted to cultivated agriculture and little tallgrass prairie remains. In southern Anderson County, an estimated 10,000 acres of tallgrass prairie are found within a 6-mile radius of the Preserve. The great majority of this land is privately owned and used for hay production and livestock grazing. The area supports a high concentration of GCN animal species (Table 1.1).

This project addresses two conservation issues. First, how can conservation management be adopted and expanded on the ACP Preserve and on surrounding privately owned prairie? This issue will be addressed by adopting management enhancements on the Preserve and by encouraging management improvements on surrounding rangeland. Secondly, this project seeks to identify what GCN species occur in this area, and to begin a monitoring program for the species on the Preserve. This will provide baseline data on the status of GCN species prior to adopting planned conservation management improvements such as patch-burn grazing. Over time, continuing monitoring and additional research on effects of management changes on GCN species will provide new information on how common management practices affect conservation priority wildlife. This information can then be used to meet the habitat needs of declining prairie wildlife wherever they occur.

Figure 1.1. Location of Anderson County Prairie Preserve (star) with selected cities for reference.

1.2. OBJECTIVES

This study had three primary objectives:

1) Determine the status of GCN species on Anderson County Prairie Preserve and in the surrounding local area (Table 1.1).

2) Establish a monitoring program for GCN species that occur on ACP Preserve. Monitoring protocols will be taxon specific as dictated by the seasonal and diel activity patterns of individual species. All methods will be quantitative and will provide abundance per unit area or relative abundance. Sub-sampling by management unit will be conducted where feasible. These data will provide a baseline from which to compare future population trends as conservation management is adopted in 2008 and beyond. Monitoring will be conducted on tracts with differing management practices and conditions. Over time, population responses of the GCN species to habitat treatments will further our understanding of the habitat needs of individual species. This, in turn, will allow for more informed conservation management to be applied for GCN species rangewide.

Figure 1.2. Location of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve (core area and two satellite tracts) in relation to roads and towns.

Table 1.1. Tallgrass Prairie Species of Greatest Conservation Need known or likely to occur at Anderson County Prairie Preserve. Source: Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (KDWP 2005). Species are listed by tier, a measure of conservation priority with Tier 1 being highest priority. Presence codes: A = verified on ACP Preserve, B = verified in Anderson County, C = potentially occurs on ACP Preserve (sources: KBS Ecological Reserves records, Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory database, Ely et. al. 1986).

Group Common Name Scientific Name Tier Presence Seasonal Status Amphibian Crawfish Frog Rana areolata I A Resident Bird American Golden- Pluvialis dominica I A Migrant Plover Bird Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii I A Breeder Bird Greater Prairie- Typanuchus cupido I A Resident Chicken Bird Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii I A Breeder Bird Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus I A Breeder Bird Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus I B Migrant Bird Smith’s Longspur Calcarius pictus I A Migrant Insect Prairie Mole Cricket Gryllotalpa major I B Resident Reptile Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus II A Resident Bird Dickcissel Spiza americana II A Breeder Bird Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna II A Resident Bird Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus II A Breeder savannarum Bird Scissor-tailed Tyrannus forficatus II A Breeder Flycatcher Insect Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos II A Resident Insect Byssus Skipper Probema byssus II C Resident? Insect Ottoe Skipper Hesperia ottoe II C Resident? Insect Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia II A Resident Bird Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus III A Resident

3) Improve habitat conditions on ACP Preserve and on surrounding private lands. Actions on the Preserve will include control of invasive species (trees and sericea lespedeza [Lespedeza cuneata (Dum. Cours.) G. Don]) and adoption of ecologically beneficial grazing and burn practices. The approach with neighboring landowners will involve outreach by project staff and partners, with an emphasis on invasive species control with the help of state and federal programs.

Deliverable Products

Quarterly reports on project status for the duration of the project (6 reports total).

Data on occurrences for 19 GNC species (Table 1.1) on the Preserve and on surrounding private lands. Information on any voucher specimens collected, including numbers of individuals, date of collection, and repository location, will be provided.

Monitoring data for GNC species on the Preserve and on surrounding private lands.

Habitat assessment data associated with species monitoring (vegetation structure, past and current year management treatments, photo point records, etc.).

Information on habitat improvements: acres cleared of woody invasive vegetation, acres of sericea lespedeza infestations treated, acres with improved land management adopted.

Notes summarizing results of outreach activities with neighboring landowners will be provided and will include date(s), location(s), duration of activities, and names and affiliations of participants.

A final report will be delivered at end of project.

CHAPTER 2: SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1. SITE DESCRIPTION

The Anderson County Prairie Preserve is located within the Osage Plains section of the Osage Plains/Flint Hills (OPFH) Prairie ecoregion (Bailey 1995). Parallel southwest-to-northeast running escarpments, separated by gently rolling to level plains, characterize the area. The Preserve comprises 1,370 acres (554 ha) in Anderson County between the towns of Garnett and Welda (Figure 1.2). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) acquired the initial 80-acre (32-ha) tract in 1996 and an adjacent 50 acres (20 ha) in 1998. An additional 1,192 acres (482 ha) was purchased in 2003. Under a 2006 agreement with TNC, management of the Preserve became the responsibility of the Kansas Biological Survey (KBS). The site is approximately 50 miles (80 km) from the KBS offices at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. The Preserve contains a core area of about 1,050 acres and two, 160-acre (65-ha) satellite sites located within 3.5 miles of the core. The central core area is bounded or intersected by two U.S. highways (59 and 169). The majority of the acreage (1,082 acres; 438 ha) has been utilized as rangeland. The remainder was used for hay and crop production.

For additional information on the preserve, see Kettle et al. (2007).

2.2. ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SITE

Tallgrass prairie is among the most endangered ecosystems in North America with an estimated loss exceeding 95% over the past 150 years. Kansas hosts most of the remaining tallgrass prairie (approximately 80%), the majority of it located in the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas. In contrast to the large expanses of native vegetation in the Flint Hills, the Osage Plains section contains remnant natural communities covering less than 10% of the total area. This is due mainly to the greater suitability of the soils for intensive agriculture. The Preserve lies within the 125,852-acre (50,930 ha) Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area, designated in the TNC Ecoregional Conservation Plan (TNC 2000) as a large functional site. While dwarfed by the large Flint Hills landscape to the west, the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area contains the largest intact tallgrass prairie landscape remaining east of the Flint Hills (Figure 2.1). The ecologically significant features of this area are the Unglaciated Tallgrass Prairie plant community and its component species. Due to differences in topography, soils, and precipitation along an east-west environmental gradient, prairies in the Osage Plains have different characteristics than Flint Hills prairie. While prairies in the Flint Hills and Osage Plains share many of the same dominant species, plant and animal species composition differs, with higher species richness found in Osage Plains prairies. Many rare and declining prairie species are found in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area. Anderson County supports the largest remaining populations of the

6 federally threatened Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii Torr.) which has a range extending from Illinois west to Anderson County, Kansas. Other rare and declining prairie species that occur in and near the Anderson County Prairie Preserve include the Greater Prairie-Chicken, Henslow’s Sparrow, Crawfish Frog , Prairie Mole Cricket, and Regal Fritillary butterfly.

Figure 2.1. Untilled landscapes of the Osage Plains/Flint Hills Ecoregion (TNC 2000). The Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area is indicated with a red circle.

2.3. HISTORIC CONDITIONS

The area now known as Anderson County was part of the territory occupied by the Kanza Indians when Euro-Americans began moving into the region. In 1837 the Pottawatomie Indians were moved from their homelands in Indiana to a reservation in the Kansas Territory, which included present day Anderson County. The first Euro-American settlement in the county commenced in 1854. When the Government Land Office survey was completed in the middle part of the nineteenth century, the county was estimated to be 94% prairie and 6% forest (Kindscher et al. 2010). The town of Welda, within one mile of the Preserve, was surveyed and platted in 1873 near the railway station of the same name that was established in 1870. The main industry of the area in the early 1880s was the baling and shipping of prairie hay, estimated to be several thousand tons annually (Cutler 1883). Hay production has continued to the present day as an important agricultural practice, although cattle grazing and crop production are the dominant agricultural activities today.

2.4. RECENT LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT

The Preserve currently consists of approximately 1370 acres (554 ha) in total, and is composed of a central core area of about 1050 acres (425 ha) and two, 160-acre (65-ha) satellite tracts that are within 2–3 miles (3–5 km) of the core area (Figure 1.2). Each of the satellite tracts has a recent history of use as cattle pasture, and each has been leased for grazing since TNC acquisition.

Land use in the 1050-acre (425-ha) core area is varied (see Figure 2.2): 762 acres (308 ha) of grazing lands in four contiguous fenced pastures that are thought to have been grazed for decades; 193 acres (78 ha) of hay meadow believed to have been used for hay production for decades; 42 acres (17 ha) of former cropland that were re-seeded to prairie vegetation in 1999; and 50 acres (20 ha) of oldfield (former cropland) that has been left fallow since at least 1996.

Problematic invasive species issues on the preserve consist of a state-listed noxious weed, sericea lespedeza, and woody invasion by trees on prairie uplands. Localized infestations of sericea lespedeza are found on the Preserve, and in 2006 a contractor was hired to reconnoiter the entire Preserve and to spot spray herbicide on all sericea lespedeza plants seen. Spot-spraying of sericea lespedeza has continued in 2007 - 2010. During the fall and winter of 2007 a contractor removed most upland trees on the central portion of the Preserve and some trees on the southern quarter section. Invasive trees on the northern quarter section (Northern Tract) and most of the southern quarter section (Southern Tract) have not yet been controlled.

Figure 2.2. Map, designations and summary information for management units in the core area at the Anderson County Prairie Preserve. Acreages are approximate; Units #1 - 9 are subject to 2003 State Wildlife Grant; base map from 2005 NAIP photography.

Unit Acres Land use – land cover Historic names Acquired Legal (Partial, Sec-T-R) Unit 1 155 pasture, native range Gravel Pit Pasture 2003 SE¼, Sec 31, 21-20 Unit 2 272 pasture, native range Lake Pasture 2003 SW¼, & in NW¼, Sec 31, 21-20 Unit 3 176 pasture, native range ―176‖ or North Pasture 2003 E part in S31, 21-20 & W part in S36, 21-19 Unit 4 159 pasture, native range Bob Black Pasture 2003 SE¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 5 65 hayfield, some mixed grasses Adamson South 1996 in SW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 6 21 native hay meadow Adamson North 1996 in SW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 7 25 oldfield, former cropland none 1996 in SW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 8 25 oldfield, former cropland none 1996 in SW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 9 17 native hay meadow Triangle Meadow 2003 in NE¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 10 50 native prairie (former meadow) Nichols Meadow 1998 in NE¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 11 20 native prairie (former meadow) Welda Prairie 1996 in NW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 12 40 restoration (former cropland) Welda Prairie 1996 in NW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 13 20 native prairie (former meadow) Welda Prairie 1996 in NW¼, S36, 21-19 Unit 14 2 restoration (former homesite) Welda Prairie 1996 in NW¼, S36, 21-19

North Quarter 160 pasture, native range & seeded Gulch or Mont Ida 2003 SW ¼, S15, 21-19 South Quarter 160 pasture, native range & seeded Welda South or Colony 2003 NW ¼, S13, 22-19

Figure 2.2. (continued)

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

3.1. PHYSICAL AND VEGETATION MONITORING

3.1.A. Photopoints

Repeat photography is one of the most basic means of landscape monitoring. While it does not generate the intense data gathered from fixed plot vegetation surveys, it is a simple and cost- effective method of monitoring vegetation and ecosystem change. It excels in portraying large- scale changes. Advantages of photo points include: . A complete inventory of the landscape is encapsulated in a picture. . Rates of vegetation change and events associated with that change are documented. . Photos can be used as an effective communication tool for public education. . The field portion of the process can be executed relatively rapidly.

The objectives in establishing a baseline set of photo points at the Anderson County Prairie Preserve are to: . Provide a ―snapshot‖ glimpse of the Preserve at the time KBS assumed management. . Evaluate the efficacy of management activities (e.g., burning, grazing, and haying). . Provide a base line of the distribution and abundance of trees and shrubs, especially those that have invaded with fire suppression. . Determine if long-term management objectives are being met.

The initial photos were taken in 2006 by Vaughn Salisbury on April 14, May 02, and September 27-29. Locations of photo points are shown in Figure 3.1. Repeat photos were taken in 2009 by graduate student Steve Roels on July 24, 27, 29, and 31, and August 05. The photos are organized by management unit (for unit map, see Figure 2.2), camera location and photo point. Each camera location has GPS coordinates and up to eight photo points associated with it. All points were taken in cardinal or intercardinal directions. Photo points at a given camera location and direction were labeled A-H and always taken in a clockwise rotation. A camera location may contain photo points associated with more than one management unit. Photos were taken from 63 camera locations across the 16 units at the Preserve. The total number of photos in the database is 265. The same photo may have been used more than once in the database if it contained a common boundary or parts of two management units. In 2006, camera locations 1- 32 were shot with a Kodak DX640 digital camera on a tripod five feet above the ground. Camera locations 33-63 were taken with a Cannon S2 IS digital camera hand held at five feet above ground level unless otherwise noted. In July 2009, all photos were shot with a Cannon Power Shot A570IS camera.

Figure 3.1. Locations of 63 repeat photography points on Anderson County Prairie Preserve.

To facilitate relocation of camera points, an attempt was made to site camera locations in the corners of units or at the confluence of fence lines. Sometimes this was not possible due to dense vegetation. On larger units, camera locations were selected on high ground in the interior or high points along exterior fences in order to capture as much of the unit as possible in the photo points.

3.1.B. Vegetation Structure

Vegetation structure of the dominant herbaceous plant communities was characterized to 1) support other studies (e.g., censuses of grassland nesting birds), and 2) support planning for future management treatments (e.g., implementation of a patch-burn graze management). Two components of vegetation structure were measured at each sample point: vertical structure (density) and ground cover.

Vertical Structure

The visual obstruction method described by Limb et al. (2007) was used to measure vertical structure. This two step method includes field data collection and image processing.

Field data collection: A digital camera (Canon Power Shot A570 IS) positioned on a tripod one meter above the ground was used to capture an image of the amount of ―visual obstruction‖ due to vegetation on a 1 sq m white board at a horizontal distance of 4 m. Transect and plot number were written in the upper left corner of the cover board with a dry erase marker at each location. A minimal effort was made to level the board by raising whichever end was lower. 12

The camera tripod was leveled with its attached bubble level. The camera was set on auto function with the lens at the widest field of view. A software program will be used to measure pixel (=vegetation) density. This method replaces the manual ―Robel pole‖ method, which although commonly used, generally results in greater variation in estimates due to observer variation.

Image processing: The digital images were imported into Adobe Photoshop and cropped to the maximum width of the background frame so that only the background and vegetation in front of it remained in the field of view. Using the ruler function the height of the cropped area was matched to this width. Once the selected area was cropped the eraser tool was used to erase the image label and the adjust threshold function was used to convert the color images to binary black and white. The default threshold setting was used (128) in converting all images to avoid unnecessary variation. After the image was converted the histogram feature was used to calculate the percentage of black and white pixels in each image. Visual obstruction was defined as the percentage of black pixels as determined by the software. Each modified image was saved to a separate file and renamed using the transect and plot number. These images and/or the originals may be analyzed further using SideLook 1.1 software (Nobis 2005) which allows for analysis of multiple vegetation structure parameters.

Ground Cover

Visual estimates of percent grasses, forbs, litter and bare ground within a 1 sq m sample frame were made. The frame was placed directly in front of the vertical cover board (one side of the frame actually touching the cover board). The sum of these percentages could exceed one hundred. Conservative forbs found within the sample frame were recorded along with a visual estimate of cattle grazing. In 2009 the presence of conservative forbs in ground cover plots was not recorded because these data were captured in separate conservative forb transects.

Sample locations

Pasture habitat was surveyed using a stratified sampling plan with transects placed in one of two topo-edaphic positions: 1) deeper-soil sites (generally characterized by uplands), and 2) shallow flats (generally near stream bottoms). Two hay meadows also were sampled, but these were on deeper soils so no stratification was necessary. In 2009 only the upland sites in the grazed units were sampled. A GIS shapefile was made for transect locations using the GPS points taken for each end of all transects. Locations of transects are shown in Figure 3.2.

Sample number

Two 100 m transects were established on deep soil areas in each of the four grazed management units. An attempt was made to place these transects at roughly the same elevation in each pasture. Three transects also were placed in the lower shallow flats topo-edaphic position in the pastures. An additional two transects were sampled in adjacent hay meadows for a total of 13 transects. A GPS reading was taken at the beginning and the end of each transect along with an elevation reading; these readings were used to create a GIS shapefile for all transects.

Plots were established at 10 m intervals along each transect (total of 10 per transect) using a tape measure. Occasionally a plot was relocated if it fell on a rock outcrop or shrub. A tape measure was not used for the shallow flats transects due to the abundance of brush; intervals were measured by walking 14 paces (roughly 10 m) between plots in a straight line.

Field sampling was conducted in 2009 on June 25, 26, and 30. Timing of the sampling was chosen to complement breeding bird surveys conducted in early to mid June. It also was important to sample the prairie hay meadows before harvest occurred soon after July 1.

3.1.C. Forb Monitoring

To obtain baseline data on the abundance of prairie forbs prior to patch-burn grazing and changes in hay meadow management, a method of monitoring forbs was developed and implemented in 2008. Along 100-m transects, 1-m2 frames (plots) were placed and sampled at 5 m intervals on alternating sides of the transect line. Transects were established randomly in upland portions of the grazed units (Units 1 - 4) and hayed units (Units 5, 6, 9, 10) of the main preserve (Figure 3.3) and in the two satellite tracts, referred to here as the South Unit and North Unit (Figure 3.4 and 3.5). Plots were sampled in July of 2008 and 2009. In each meter-squared plot, percent cover of grass, forbs, litter and bare ground were visually estimated, and the percent cover of each of 46 forb species (Table 3.1) was estimated. Species were selected for ease of identification in the field during early July and for high coefficient of conservatism (C) values.

A coefficient of conservatism is an integer from zero to 10 that is assigned to each native plant species in a given geographic region—often a state or province. Naturally occurring hybrids and infraspecific taxa usually are not assigned coefficients. Coefficients of conservatism express two basic ecological tenets: plants differ in their tolerance of the type, frequency, and amplitude of anthropogenic disturbance, and plantsvary in their fidelity to remnant natural plant communities (Taft et al. 1997). As employed in FQA, these two principles exhibit an inverse relationship: the lower a species’ tolerance of human-mediated disturbance, the higher its likelihood of occurring only in a natural plant community. Low coefficient values (0–3) denote taxa often found in highly disturbed habitats and without a strong affinity for natural communities. High coefficient values (7–10) denote species that tolerate only limited disturbance and usually are found in natural communities. With these principles as a guide, the C value applied to each species represents a relative rank based on observed behavior and patterns of occurrence in Kansas natural communities. Non-native species are not assigned coefficients because they were were included. Field personnel with strong plant identification expertise were not always available to conduct fieldwork, so it was necessary to select forb species that were readily detected and identifiable in the field. not part of the presettlement landscape. They do have an effect on FQA, however, and they may be incorporated in the assessment process. However, some species with low to moderate C values also were included. Field personnel with strong plant identification expertise were not always available to conduct fieldwork, so it was necessary to select forb species that were readily detected and identifiable in the field.

Figure 3.2. Locations of 100-m long transects for estimating vertical structure of vegetation on the central core area of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve.

Figure 3.3. Locations of 100-m long transects for monitoring conservative forb species on the central core area of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve.

Figure 3.4. Locations of 100-m long transects for monitoring conservative forb species on the South Tract (160 ac satellite tract south of the core area) on the Anderson County Prairie Preserve.

Figure 3.5. Locations of 100-m long transects for monitoring conservative forb species on the North Tract (160 ac satellite tract north of the core area) on the Anderson County Prairie Preserve.

Table 3.1. List of 46 forb species included in forb monitoring at Anderson County Prairie Preserve in 2008 - 2009. C = Coefficient of Conservatism value for Kansas.

Family Scientific Name Common Name C value Asclepiadaceae Asclepias meadii Mead's milkweed 10 Scrophulariaceae Buchnera americana blue hearts 9 Rhamnaceae Ceanothus americanus American ceanothus 9 Asteraceae Aster oolentangiensis var. oolentangiensis azure aster 8 Rhamnaceae Ceanothus herbaceus inland ceanothus 8 Asteraceae Coreopsis grandiflora bigflower coreopsis 8 Gentianaceae Gentiana puberulenta downy gentian 8 Polygalaceae Polygala incarnata slender milkwort 8 Polygalaceae Polygala sanguinea blood milkwort 8 Asteraceae Prenanthes aspera rough rattlesnake-root 8 Scrophulariaceae Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's-root 8 Fabaceae Amorpha canescens leadplant 7 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias hirtella prairie milkweed 7 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias stenophylla narrow-leaf milkweed 7 Asteraceae Coreopsis palmata finger coreopsis 7 Fabaceae Dalea candida var. candida white prairie-clover 7 Fabaceae Dalea purpurea var. purpurea purple prairie-clover 7 Fabaceae Desmodium sessilifolium sessile-leaf tickclover 7 Asteraceae Echinacea pallida pale purple-coneflower 7 Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium var. yuccifolium button snake-root eryngo 7 Asteraceae Helianthus mollis ashy sunflower 7 Asteraceae Liatris pycnostachya thick-spike gayfeather 7 Fabaceae Pediomelum esculentum bread-root scurf-pea 7 Polemoniaceae Phlox pilosa subsp. fulgida prairie phlox 7 Asteraceae Arnoglossum (Cacalia) plantagineum tuberous Indian-plantain 6 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa subsp. interior butterfly milkweed 6 Fabaceae Lespedeza capitata round-head bush-clover 6 Asteraceae Liatris aspera button gayfeather 6 Campanulaceae Lobelia spicata var. leptostachys pale-spike lobelia 6 Violaceae Viola pedatifida var. pedatifida prairie violet 6 Asteraceae Helianthus salicifolius willowleaf sunflower 6 Fabaceae Baptisia bracteata var. leucophaea plains wild-indigo 6 Fabaceae Baptisia australis blue wild-indigo 6 Fabaceae Mimosa quadrivalvis cat-claw mimosa 6 Fabaceae Baptisia alba var. macrophylla white wild-indigo 5 Fabaceae Desmodium illinoense Illinois tick-clover 5 Asteraceae Helianthus pauciflorus var. pauciflorus stiff sunflower 5 Commelinaceae Tradescantia ohiensis Ohio spiderwort 5 Asteraceae Liatris mucronata pointed gayfeather 5 Lamiaceae Physostegia angustifolia false dragonhead 5 Fabaceae Lespedeza virginica slender bush clover 5 Asteraceae Hieracium longipilum longbeard hawkweed 5 Asteraceae Silphium laciniatum compassplant 4 Scrophulariaceae Penstemon digitalis smooth beardtongue 4 Fabaceae Psoralidium tenuiflorum narrow-leaf scurf-pea 3 Scrophulariaceae Penstemon tubiflorus tube beardtongue 3

3.2. MONITORING: MULTI-SPECIES ANIMAL PROTOCOLS

3.2.A. Birds

Two programs were used to monitor breeding birds. The first involved walking standardized 600 m transects on the Preserve. Six transects, two in hayed units and four in grazed units, were established (Figure 3.6). All birds detected within 150 m of the transect line were recorded together with the angle and distance from the transect line. Birds flying by that did not land were not recorded. Transects were surveyed once or twice each year between 1–20 June. The data can be used with program DISTANCE to provide a density estimate for each species with adequate sample size.

The second bird monitoring program follows methodology of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (U.S. Geological Survey 2010). It was designed to provide data on the identity and relative abundance of breeding birds in the general vicinity of the Preserve. A 25-mile driving route was defined with listening stops established at 0.5-mile intervals (Figure 3.7). At each stop, all birds seen or heard during a 3-minute period are recorded. The route is surveyed once each year between 27 May and 20 June.

3.2.B. Amphibians

To determine the identity and relative abundance of breeding anurans on and in the vicinity of the Preserve, a driving route with 10 listening stops (Figure 3.7) was established following methodology of the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (U.S. Geological Survey 2008). Listening stops were located near farm ponds or other small water bodies. Surveys were conducted one or two times during early to mid spring in 2008 and 2009 when environmental conditions were favorable for amphibian breeding activity (low wind, mild temperatures, and after rain events). This survey was primarily designed to determine the presence, distribution and abundance of one target species, Crawfish Frog in south-central Anderson County.

3.3. MONITORING AND INVENTORIES: INDIVIDUAL GCN SPECIES

Birds

Information on breeding grassland species was provided by the grassland bird monitoring program established in 2006 (see 3.2.A.). Records of species off the preserve were provided by the Breeding Bird Survey route established in 2008 (see 3.2.A.). In addition, records of birds on and off the Preserve were obtained incidental to other field work.

Records of non-breeding birds can be obtained by targeted inventories or incidentally while conducting other field work. Targeted inventories included a survey of Smith’s Longspur conducted by visiting potential habitat (prairie with short vegetation) during periods of spring or fall

Figure 3.6. Location of 600 m breeding bird transects in the core area of the Preserve.

migration and looking for small flocks of longspurs on the ground or in flight. Identification is primarily by listening for its flight call; birds also can be visually identified. Information on American Golden Plover is most readily obtained by visiting suitable habitat (recently burned grasslands) during the migration period in late March and April. Birds usually occur in flocks foraging on the ground, and often often found together with other shorebirds such as Upland Sandpiper, Killdeer, and Buff-breasted Sandpiper. Short-eared Owl can be found by visiting open grassland at dawn and dusk during spring and fall migration periods and visually searching for owls flying low over the ground.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Information on amphibians was obtained from amphibian monitoring surveys and observations incidental to other field work. Information on reptiles was obtained incidental to other field work. No targeted reptile surveys were conducted during this study.

Mammals

No GCN mammal species are known or considered likely to occur on the Preserve and no mammal surveys were conducted as part of this project.

Figure 3.7. Route of breeding bird survey (red; dots indicate listening stops) and anuran survey (yellow; triangles indicate listening stops) in the vicinity of ACP Preserve (shaded light blue) in southern Anderson County.

Butterflies

Surveys of butterflies on the Preserve and surrounding area were conducted by Ray Moranz in 2008 and 2009 (see Appendix A and B).

Prairie Mole Cricket

Surveys for the Prairie Mole Cricket were conducted by listening for calling males during the breeding season in April-May. Males generally call continuously from dusk to dark on evenings with suitable conditions (low winds and temperatures above 63 degrees F).

3.4. HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL

Grant funds were allocated to spot spray for sericea lespedeza on the Preserve using a private contractor. Match funds were used to conduct additional weed control by KU Field Station personnel.

These actions were part of a larger integrated effort to control invasive species on the Preserve (Kettle et al. 2007). Most of the invasive species management has been funded from other sources, primarily from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Partners for Wildlife Program.

During the study period, habitat management was conducted by KU Field Station personnel using match funds and other internal funds and by the agricultural lessee. Management actions consisted of conducting controlled burns, arranging for grazing and haying on appropriate units, and planning for implementation of patch-burn grazing to commence in the spring of 2010.

3.5. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Several education and outreach activities were organized and carried out. Among them was a meeting at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Garnett to introduce KU Field Station staff to natural resource professionals in the Anderson County and East-central Kansas area and to discuss objectives for the Preserve. Another was a workshop on grassland management and Anderson County Prairie Preserve held at the Anderson County fairgrounds for the public and area landowners and producers.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. MONITORING: VEGETATION AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1.A. Photopoints

The initial photos for all photopoints on the Preserve were taken in 2006. As a part of this study, a second series of photos was taken in July and August 2009. Sample photos from 2006 and 2009 are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. These photos illustrate changes on the Preserve during this three-year period. Most evident are decreases in woody vegetation due to mechanical tree removal in the fall and winter of 2007/2008 and controlled burns. While the seasonal timing of the photos in 2006 and 2009 was not the same, changes in structure and composition of herbaceous vegetation also are evident in these photos. The reference photos in this collection will be invaluable in documenting change in landscape character and vegetation over time.

4.1.B. Vegetation Structure

Vertical structure and ground cover were measured in three landuse/habitat situations in the uplands of the central preserve south of U.S. 169. In 2008, the sites sampled were grazed tallgrass prairie in Units 1 - 4 (8 transects), rocky flats in Units 1–4 (3 transects), and hayed areas in Unit 5 and 6. In 2009, only the grazed prairie located in Units 1–4 was sampled.

Summaries of the results for grazed tallgrass prairie are presented in Table 4.1 (vertical structure) and 4.2 (groundcover). These data serve as baseline information for future research in the grazed and hayed units. They are useful in evaluating grassland bird habitat, given that vegetation structure is an important component of habitat use by most grassland birds. In addition, vegetation structure is a product of land management and can serve as one means of evaluating the effects of management practices.

4.1.C. Conservative Forbs

The frequency of conservative forb species in meter-squared plots sampled in 2008 and 2009 is summarized in Table 4.3. The most commonly recorded species were leadplant, azure aster, bigflower coreopsis, ashy sunflower, slender bush clover, narrowleaf scurf pea, and prairie violet. Overall, 40 of the 46 targeted forb species were detected in one or more plots.

Figure 4.1. Photopoint photos from Unit 13 (hay meadow) taken on 4/14/2006 (top) and 7/31/2009 (bottom). Note evidence of tree removal after 2006.

Figure 4.2. Photopoint photos from Unit 1 (grazed) taken on 9/28/2006 (top) and 7/29/2009 (bottom). Note evidence of tree removal after 2006.

Table 4.1. Summary data for vegetative structure (vertical) for 2008 (top) and 2009 (bottom) from upland sites at ACP Preserve. Data are the percentage of visual obstruction on a white board using photo-interpretation. In 2009, Transect 14 was used as a replacement for Transect 7.

Percent Visual Obstruction 2008 Transect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Unit 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Plot 1 17.25 16.88 19.61 20.03 24.31 23.78 17.96 17.93 Plot 2 16.74 20.33 20.99 22.42 24.57 24.68 13.79 16.59 Plot 3 10.84 20.32 13.43 18.56 22.34 14.89 16.9 24.99 Plot 4 23.39 19.39 14.71 17.04 23.9 19.01 17.21 20.71 Plot 5 29.04 19.92 16.06 17.36 24.25 21.64 17.4 15.52 Plot 6 20.54 16.24 15.92 22.57 18.1 23.1 12.01 15.13 Plot 7 23.81 14.11 23.76 23.95 22.24 16.07 13.33 15.94 Plot 8 11.46 17.17 18.87 24.14 22.79 19.25 18.97 19.14 Plot 9 15.75 17.26 16.31 28.97 21.55 26.97 15.74 17.17 Plot 10 18.85 13.84 21.21 25.28 23.32 20.2 15.36 20.98 Sum 187.67 178.46 185.87 226.32 235.37 218.59 169.67 196.1 Mean 18.77 17.55 18.09 22.03 22.74 20.96 15.87 18.41 St dev 5.65 2.41 3.31 3.80 1.92 3.82 2.24 3.09 St err 1.79 0.76 1.05 1.20 0.61 1.21 0.71 0.98

2009 Transect 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 8 Unit 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 Plot 1 24.52 19.4 22.32 39.16 17.76 25.44 34.14 24.6 Plot 2 21.06 28.94 20.26 52.39 22.42 19.74 24.24 29.95 Plot 3 12.06 16.27 22.23 30.39 26.11 24.55 26.61 38.95 Plot 4 18.66 16.34 21.32 37.22 14.75 18.35 23.83 45.79 Plot 5 16.74 29.92 18.56 31.79 15.91 22.19 18.47 33.91 Plot 6 24.9 19.19 21.34 36.13 14.56 16.83 31.03 41.48 Plot 7 27.09 13.91 36.27 35.17 9.23 11.97 24.82 39.22 Plot 8 36.95 15.54 34.54 36.18 18.34 7.9 19.74 30.32 Plot 9 32.52 21.11 21.56 39.24 16.75 14.76 24.82 37.15 Plot 10 35.08 17.28 33.69 34.77 16.28 19.52 21.5 30.83 Sum 249.58 197.9 252.09 372.44 172.11 181.25 249.2 352.2 Mean 24.96 19.79 25.21 37.24 17.21 18.13 24.92 35.22 St dev 8.14 5.50 6.76 6.02 4.56 5.49 4.80 6.41 Std err 2.58 1.74 2.14 1.90 1.44 1.74 1.52 2.03

Table 4.2. Summary data for vegetative structure (horizontal) for 2008 (top) and 2009 (bottom) from upland site at ACP Preserve. Data are the percent cover of vegetation estimated visually. In 2009, Transect 14 was used as a replacement for Transect 7.

Percent Grass Cover 2008 Transect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Unit 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 Plot 1 90 95 100 88 50 95 85 94 Plot 2 90 97 90 70 82 95 82 93 Plot 3 80 95 99 85 93 73 90 90 Plot 4 98 90 97 82 95 100 95 95 Plot 5 100 95 97 85 95 75 92 95 Plot 6 98 90 99 90 95 98 95 90 Plot 7 96 95 100 96 92 97 93 90 Plot 8 80 98 100 100 65 90 97 93 Plot 9 85 97 96 100 98 95 90 97 Plot 10 90 95 100 95 87 90 97 92 Sum 907 950 983 897 860 917 927 941 Mean 90.7 94.7 97.8 89.1 85.2 90.8 91.6 92.9 St dev 7.33 2.71 3.12 9.26 15.70 9.40 4.99 2.42 St err 2.32 0.86 0.99 2.93 4.97 2.97 1.58 0.77

2009 Transect 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 8 Unit 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 Plot 1 80 78 82 88 75 82 80 93 Plot 2 78 78 70 97 65 75 92 Plot 3 75 65 75 88 75 80 65 88 Plot 4 85 70 78 78 87 85 70 90 Plot 5 80 85 80 75 82 68 60 85 Plot 6 85 90 85 85 70 88 60 87 Plot 7 70 82 78 93 95 75 85 90 Plot 8 87 70 90 92 93 75 83 83 Plot 9 93 70 85 94 83 85 68 83 Plot 10 95 80 90 88 85 82 80 90 Sum 830 771 818 884 818 638 743 893 Mean 82.8 76.8 81.3 87.8 81 80 72.6 88.1 St dev 7.77 7.89 6.41 6.96 9.70 6.28 9.31 3.54 St err 6.93 7.03 5.72 6.20 8.64 5.60 8.30 3.16

Comparisons among management units on ACP Preserve are summarized in Figure 4.3. As expected, the high quality hay meadows in Units 9 and 10 support the highest richness of conservative forb species, averaging 3-5 species per 1-m2 plot (Figure 4.3, upper). Grazed units contained roughly one-half the number of forb species per plot, from about two species in the central pastures (Units 1–4) and in the South Unit, to about one species per plot in the North Unit. Overall, grazed units supported about one-half the number of forbs with C values of 3 - 10 compared to the hayed units.

When only the most conservative forb species (C values of 7 - 10) are considered (Figure 4.3, lower), differences between hayed and grazed units were similar to those found for all monitored forbs. Hayed units held over twice the density of the most conservative forbs, an average of 2 - 3 species per plot, compared to the grazed units. This follows the expected pattern, with highly conservative species being the most sensitive to grazing and other disturbances.

Forb monitoring also led to the discovery that some native grasslands in the Preserve had been cultivated previously. Portions of the North and South units exhibited very low conservative forb densities. When historical aerial photography (National Archives, agricultural series) from 1938 and 1950 was examined, it was evident that parts of these two units had been plowed and used for crop production. In the many decades since farming had ceased in these units, native prairie species had reestablished to the point where the areas closely resembled unplowed prairie.

The main purpose of these data will be to provide a baseline from which to compare future conditions. Over time, conservation management is predicted to result in a more diverse and conservative plant community.

4.2. MONITORING AND INVENTORY: ANIMALS

4.2.A. Greater Prairie-Chicken

Historically, southern Anderson County has supported large prairie chicken populations. In the twentieth century, populations reported peaked in the 1950s and 1960s. Prairie chicken hunting was a popular fall sport and large numbers of hunters congregated at the Rocky Roost Café along U.S. 160 in Welda (Bill Brecheisen, pers. comm.). A steady population decline since that time can be attributed to various factors, of which loss of prairie habitat may be the most important.

A monitoring program for Greater Prairie-Chicken was initiated by KBS in 2004 and continued during this project. Leks were surveyed annually in the early spring (Figure 4.4). Over the seven year period (2004 - 2010) reported here, the numbers of leks and displaying males declined sharply, from seven leks and approximately 50 males in 2004, to one lek and five males in 2010 (Table 4.4). This precipitous decline and the marginal remaining population are not sustainable and may soon result in local extirpation. Other populations in eastern Kansas also have experienced population decline over this time period, as indicated by standard lek surveys conducted by the Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks in the Osage Plains and Flint Hills regions of Kansas (KDWP 2010). However, the rate of decline in this part of Anderson County over this period has been more consistent and substantially greater than elsewhere in the region.

Table 4.3. Frequency of species encountered in conservative forb surveys (n= 720 1-m2 plots) in 2008-2009.

Scientific Name Common Name Frequency % Frequency Amorpha canescens leadplant 384 0.533 Arnoglossum (Cacalia) plantagineum tuberous Indian-plantain 7 0.009 Asclepias hirtella prairie milkweed 0 0.000 Asclepias meadii Mead's milkweed 2 0.003 Asclepias stenophylla narrow-leaf milkweed 0 0 Asclepias tuberosa subsp. interior butterfly milkweed 0 0 Aster oolentangiensis var. oolentangiensis azure aster 125 0.173 Baptisia alba var. macrophylla white wild-indigo 9 0.012 Baptisia australis blue wild-indigo 29 0.040 Baptisia bracteata var. leucophaea plains wild-indigo 93 0.129 Buchnera americana blue hearts 9 0.012 Ceanothus americanus American ceanothus 25 0.034 Ceanothus herbaceus inland ceanothus 8 0.011 Coreopsis grandiflora bigflower coreopsis 107 0.148 Coreopsis palmata finger coreopsis 6 0.008 Dalea candida var. candida white prairie-clover 77 0.106 Dalea purpurea var. purpurea purple prairie-clover 62 0.086 Desmodium illinoense Illinois tick-clover 1 0.001 Desmodium sessilifolium sessile-leaf tickclover 5 0.006 Echinacea pallida pale purple-coneflower 30 0.041 Eryngium yuccifolium var. yuccifolium button snake-root eryngo 2 0.003 Gentiana puberulenta downy gentian 16 0.022 Helianthus mollis ashy sunflower 166 0.230 Helianthus pauciflorus var. pauciflorus stiff sunflower 14 0.019 Helianthus salicifolius willowleaf sunflower 0 0 Hieracum longipilum longbeard hawkweed 12 0.016 Lespedeza capitata round-head bush-clover 22 0.030 Lespedeza virginica slender bush clover 107 0.148 Liatris aspera button gayfeather 1 0.001 Liatris mucronata pointed gayfeather 3 0.004 Liatris pycnostachya thick-spike gayfeather 8 0.011 Lobelia spicata var. leptostachys pale-spike lobelia 1 0.001 Mimosa quadrivalvis cat-claw mimosa 17 0.023 Pediomelum esculentum bread-root scurf-pea 2 0.002 Penstemon sp.* smooth beardtongue 22 0.030 Phlox pilosa subsp. fulgida prairie phlox 0 0 Physostegia angustifolia false dragonhead 0 0 Polygala incarnata slender milkwort 10 0.013 Polygala sanguinea blood milkwort 35 0.048 Prenanthes aspera rough rattlesnake-root 2 0.002 Psoralidium tenuiflorum narrow-leaf scurf-pea 115 0.159 Silphium laciniatum compassplant 10 0.013 Tradescantia ohiensis Ohio spiderwort 2 0.002 Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's-root 0 0 Viola pedatifida var. pedatifida prairie violet 177 0.245

Figure 4.3. Mean values for number of conservative forbs per plot at four sites on ACP Preserve in 2008 and 2009. Site labels: hayed refers to Units 9 - 10 (80 plots), Grazed C is central pasture (Units 1 - 4; 180 plots); Grazed N is the 160 acre North Tract (40 plots in 2008, 60 plots in 2009), and Grazed S is the South Tract (40 plots in 2008, 60 plots in 2009). The top figure includes data on all 45 target forb species (see Table 3.1). The bottom figure includes only the most conservative forbs (i.e., high C values; 26 species).

The reason for the dramatic decline in this area has not been documented. The declines in eastern Kansas during this time period may be due in part to poor recruitment conditions during years with wet weather in 2005, 2007, and 2008 (Jim Pitman, pers. comm.). If this were the case here, we would expect reduced populations in years following poor recruitment years (i.e., 2006, 2008, and 2009). Populations declined almost every year, but declines were not markedly larger during these three years, suggesting other factors may be involved. One such factor may be changing range management practices. While range practices in Anderson County as a whole have not changed greatly in recent years, several of the large prairie pastures that contain leks or are used regularly by prairie chickens have shifted to annual burn management and early season intensive grazing (Bill Brecheisen pers. comm.). Burned pastures do not provide nesting habitat due to the absence of sufficient cover for concealment of the nest and young. These local changes in management may be an important factor in population declines since they were implemented in the past 10–15 years.

Figure 4.4. Locations of prairie chicken leks (stars) in the vicinity of Anderson County Praire Preserve (black outlines) in 2004 - 2009.

Table 4.4. Total number of leks and birds encountered during Greater Prairie-Chicken lek surveys near Anderson County Prairie Preserve from 2004–2010.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

No. Leks 5 6 5 3 2 2 1 No. Birds 45+ 48+ 34 21 16 15 5

4.2.B. Breeding Bird Transects

A breeding bird monitoring program was established on the Preserve to provide baseline information on grassland bird populations and to track populations over time. The program was initiated in 2006, the year that the Kansas Biological Survey assumed management responsibilities of the Preserve, and is planned to continue annually in June.

During the initial four years of monitoring (2006 - 2009), 29 species were recorded (Table 4.5). As expected, the dominant species were grassland specialists: Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, Grasshopper Sparrow, and Henslow’s Sparrow. These four species together comprised 68% of all birds recorded. A second, less abundant group of birds, including Bell’s Vireo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Kingbird, Field Sparrow, and Loggerhead Shrike, inhabit grassland with a woody component such as shrubs or isolated trees.

Changes in habitat conditions on the Preserve may affect breeding bird populations, benefiting populations of some species and harming others. During the study period, one major habitat change occurred during the winter of 2007-08 when most trees were removed mechanically from the uplands in the hay and grazed areas of the main part of the Preserve. This abrupt reduction in woody vegetation in the uplands was predicted to favor those grassland birds with a preference for open, treeless habitat and to disfavor species that utilized woody vegetation. To examine this question, bird transect data for two years prior to tree removal (2006 and 2007) were compared to data from the first two years post tree removal (2008 and 2009). Population data for a selection of species for these two periods, before and after tree removal, are shown in Figure 4.5. Conforming to predictions, all five species of open grassland showed increases in abundance from 2006 - 07 to 2008-09, whereas ten species (Bell’s Vireo and nine other species combined) that prefer a woody habitat component showed declines in abundance. While conclusions from these results are limited by small sample sizes, it illustrates the value of monitoring data in demonstrating the effect of habitat changes on wildlife populations.

4.2.C. Breeding Bird Survey

The Breeding Bird Survey was conducted in 2008 and 2009 along a 25-mile route near Welda, Kansas. Results for these two years are summarized in Table 4.6. In 2008, 51 species and a total of 915 individuals were observed. In 2009, 48 species and 888 individuals were observed. Dominant species, defined as species observed at 20 or more stops or more than 50 individuals on a survey,

were Northern Bobwhite, Upland Sandpiper, Northern Mockingbird, Grasshopper Sparrow, Dickcissel, Red-winged Blackbird, Eastern Meadowlark, and Brown-headed Cowbird. Of these, Dickcissel and Eastern Meadowlark were the two most commonly observed species, being found at about 90% of stops. Grassland birds are clearly the best-represented bird assemblage in this area, as evidenced by seven of the eight dominant species (all except Northern Mockingbird) being associated with grassland habitat.

The purpose of this survey was to provide information on the species and abundance of breeding birds in the area near the Preserve. This information may prove useful in evaluating what species to expect on the Preserve, similarities and differences on and off the Preserve, and to assess changes in local bird populations over time.

Table 4.5. Results from June bird survey transects on ACP Preserve for 2006 - 2009. Observations within 100 m of the transect line are presented here.

Species Number of birds 2006 2007 2008 2009 Mean American Crow 1 0 0 0.33 American Goldfinch 3 1 0 0 1.00 Baltimore Oriole 1 0 0 0 0.25 Bell's Vireo 7 9 5 5 6.50 Brown-headed Cowbird 21 23 4 0 12.00 Blue Grosbeak 0 0 1 0 0.25 Blue Jay 0 1 0 0 0.25 Brown Thrasher 6 8 1 2 4.25 Common Grackle 0 3 2 0 1.25 Common Nighthawk 0 0 1 5 1.50 Common Yellowthroat 4 1 0 1 1.50 Dickcissel 81 43 45 76 61.25 Downy Woodpecker 0 1 0 0 0.25 Eastern Kingbird 2 5 1 0 2.00 Eastern Meadowlark 41 13 10 21 21.25 Eastern Towhee 1 0 0 0 0.25 Field Sparrow 9 3 2 0 3.50 Gray Catbird 2 0 2 4 2.00 Grasshopper Sparrow 13 9 18 15 13.75 Henslow's Sparrow 9 0 0 15 6.00 Indigo Bunting 1 0 0 1 0.50 Loggerhead Shrike 0 0 1 0 0.25 Mourning Dove 2 0 0 2 1.00 Northern Bobwhite 0 3 1 0 1.00 Northern Cardinal 1 0 2 1 1.00 Northern Mockingbird 1 2 0 0 0.75 Orchard Oriole 1 2 0 0 0.75 Red-winged Blackbird 1 2 2 4 2.25 Upland Sandpiper 0 0 1 4 1.25

Bird Abundance

1.200

1.000

Before tree control 0.800 After tree control

0.600 Birds Birds / ha 0.400

0.200

0.000 DICK EAME GRSP HESP UPSA BEVI Edge

Figure 4.5. Bird abundance in June on the core grazing units at Anderson County Prairie Preserve before (2006 - 2007) and after (2008 - 2009) tree removal during fall 2007. Species codes: DICK (Dickcissel), EAME (Eastern Meadowlark), GRSP (Grasshopper Sparrow), HESP (Henslow’s Sparrow), UPSA (Upland Sandpiper), and BEVI (Bell’s Vireo). Edge refers to nine species (Blue Grosbeak, Northern Bobwhite, Brown Thrasher, Baltimore Oriole, Northern Cardinal, Eastern Kingbird, Field Sparrow, American Goldfinch, and Gray Catbird) that require woody vegetation.

Table 4.6. Summary data for a Breeding Bird Survey located near Welda, Kansas. The route contained 50 3-minute listening stops along a 25-mile driving route.

6/14/2008 6/30/2009 Total Total Total Total English name Stops Individuals Stops Individuals Detected Detected Detected Detected Wood Duck 0 0 1 1 Wild Turkey 3 3 0 0 Northern Bobwhite 24 28 32 49 Great Blue Heron 1 1 0 0 Turkey Vulture 1 1 2 2 Cooper’s Hawk 1 1 0 0 Red-tailed Hawk 0 0 5 5 American Kestrel 0 0 1 2 Killdeer 6 7 5 8 Upland Sandpiper 22 27 12 16

Table 4.6 (continued)

Mourning Dove 23 90 21 37 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 12 15 8 10 Common Nighthawk 2 3 6 9 Red-bellied Woodpecker 4 4 5 5 Eastern Wood-Pewee 1 1 1 1 Eastern Phoebe 2 2 2 2 Great Crested Flycatcher 4 4 1 1 Eastern Kingbird 7 9 8 11 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher 9 14 6 9 Loggerhead Shrike 2 2 0 0 Bell’s Vireo 1 1 4 5 Blue Jay 6 7 2 2 American Crow 15 20 7 11 Horned Lark 3 3 0 0 Purple Martin 1 1 0 0 Tree Swallow. 2 3 0 0 Northern Rough-winged 1 1 0 0 Swallow Barn Swallow. 4 4 9 20 Black-capped Chickadee 1 2 1 1 Tufted Titmouse 6 7 3 3 Carolina Wren 1 1 1 1 Eastern Bluebird 16 22 18 23 American Robin 0 0 4 7 Gray Catbird 1 1 0 0 Northern Mockingbird 29 36 20 23 Brown Thrasher 17 18 9 13 European Starling 1 1 1 3 Cedar Waxwing 0 0 1 1 Northern Parula 0 0 1 1 Common Yellowthroat 3 3 1 1 Field Sparrow 14 18 12 16 Lark Sparrow 3 3 4 5 Grasshopper Sparrow 31 60 22 40 Henslow's Sparrow 1 1 0 0 Northern Cardina 11 15 17 21 Blue Grosbeak 1 1 5 5 Indigo Bunting 4 5 4 8 Dickcissel. 49 184 47 217 Red-winged Blackbird. 20 42 25 44 Eastern Meadowlark. 49 167 44 161 Common Grackle 9 21 5 12 Great-tailed Grackle. 1 1 4 22 Brown-headed Cowbird 21 38 21 37 Orchard Oriole. 7 8 4 4 Baltimore Oriole. 5 5 5 6 American Goldfinch 2 2 6 6 House Sparrow 1 1 1 1

4.2.D. Anuran Surveys

Results of nocturnal listening surveys for calling frogs and toads are summarized in Table 4.7. Four species regularly were detected during the surveys: American Toad, Boreal Chorus Frog, Crawfish Frog, and Plains Leopard Frog. Two of these species, American Toad and Boreal Chorus Frog, were heard calling at nearly all stops on each survey date. This suggests that these species are common and widely distributed in the study area. They also are less sensitive to temperature and rainfall events and call more consistently on consecutive nights. In contrast, the two ranids, Plains Leopard Frog and Crawfish Frog, call less consistently and were detected at fewer sites along the survey route (see species account for additional information on Crawfish Frog).

Three other species that are common in southern Anderson County were not detected in this survey: Blanchard’s Cricket Frog, Cope’s Gray Treefrog, and Bullfrog. The survey was timed to detect early season breeders, especially the Crawfish Frog. The three species listed in Table 4.7 that were not recorded breed later in the spring. If anuran surveys had been conducted in May and June, these latter species, and perhaps additional species, probably would have been detected.

4.2.E. Butterfly Surveys

Results of butterfly surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009 on the Preserve and elsewhere are reported in Appendices A and B.

Table 4.7. Results from amphibian calling surveys conducted during March and April 2008-09. Animals were surveyed at night by ear at 14 stops along a 10-mile driving transect near Welda, Kansas. Calling intensity values: 1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high.

No. stops detected (%) Mean calling intensity Species 4/19/2008 3/22/2009 4/4/2009 4/19/2008 3/22/2009 4/4/2009 Acris blanchardi, Blanchard’s Cricket Frog 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bufo americanus American Toad 14 (100) 12 (0.86) 14 (100) 2.1 1.3 2.2 Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s Gray Treefrog 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pseudacris maculata Boreal Chorus Frog 14 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) 2.1 1.5 2.1 Rana areolata Crawfish Frog 11 (0.79) 2 (0.14) 13 (0.93) 1.9 2 1.6 Rana blairi Plains Leopard Frog 7 (0.50) 4 (0.28.) 5 (0.36) 1.9 1 1 Rana catesbeianna Bullfrog 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3 SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED ACCOUNTS

American Golden-Plover Status: Spring migrant. Data from current study: Not observed. No targeted surveys were conducted during this study, and the species was not encountered while conducting other work. However, this plover has been observed frequently in the recent past in the area near ACP Preserve where it uses recently burned prairie and is considered a regular, if somewhat unpredictable, spring visitor. It occurs in flocks of up to several hundred birds, often together with Upland Sandpiper and Buff-breasted Sandpiper. Habitat: Primarily observed during March and April in recently burned prairie. May also use mudflats and short-statured grasslands. Threats: Threats during migration include loss of prairie habitat, habitat degradation that reduces spring insect availability.

Bell’s Vireo Status: Summer resident. Data from current study: Observed in moderate numbers on June bird transects (Table 4.5) and less commonly on BBS counts (Table 4.6). Habitat: Patches of low shrubs or thickets (sumac, dogwood, plum) in open areas, usually upland prairie. In the study area, Bell’s Vireo is predictably encountered in suitable habitat. Habitat is patchy and dynamic due to damaging effects of frequent fire (shrub suppression) and woody succession that can quickly surpass the vertical height tolerated by Bell’s Vireo. Threats: Habitat destruction due to agricultural conversion and pasture spraying and nest parasitism by the Brown-headed Cowbird.

Dickcissel Status: Summer resident. Data from current study: Observed in large numbers on June bird transects (Table 4.5) and on the BBS count (Table 4.6). The Dickcissel was the most abundant grassland bird in the study area. Habitat: Tallgrass prairie, other grasslands with dense herbaceous cover, and idle fields. This species is tolerant of a wide variety of open habitats with at least moderate vegetative cover and exhibits little area sensitivity and will occupy relatively small fields. Threats: Cowbird parasitism and habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural conversion, ―clean‖ farming practices, and early season double-stocking with annual fire, a grazing practice that is increasing in popularity but is not widespread in southern Anderson County. At this time, threats appear manageable.

Eastern Meadowlark Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: One of the three most common grassland breeding birds in the study area, the Eastern Meadowlark was well-represented on transect surveys (Table 4.5) and on the BBS route (Table 4.6) where it was the second most abundant species in each survey. Habitat: Open grassland. Tolerant of a variety of grassland conditions, but most common in large tracts of unburned prairie. It favors elevated perches such as fences and trees where available, but

38 there is no evidence that taller structure is an important habitat component. Avoids sites with thick herbaceous growth and areas with woody invasion. Threats: Loss of habitat is probably the greatest threat in the tallgrass prairie region along with habitat degradation due to annual burning or woody invasion.

Greater Prairie-Chicken Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: Information on prairie chickens was obtained by spring lek counts (Table 4.3). The precipitous decline during the seven years of annual monitoring is striking and discussed in section 4.2.A. No prairie chickens were recorded on the ACP Preserve or on the BBS surveys, although these surveys were not designed to sample this early-nesting species. Habitat: Large areas of tallgrass prairie. In this part of Anderson County, the species is largely restricted to the large native pastures south of ACP Preserve. This is the least fragmented area in the study area with relatively few houses, roads, or other anthropogenic features. Threats: In this area, the reason for the recent steep population decline is not documented. The rapid decline outpaces such potential threats as habitat conversion and expansion of woody vegetation. Changing management practices in the key pastures used by chickens have been suggested as a major contributing factor. Annual burning with intensive early season grazing has become popular in the area of prairie chicken occurrence. Other sites in this area also have been subjected recently to overgrazing and broadcast herbicide application, in sharp contrast to the traditional grazing practices in this area of season-long stocking and less frequent burns.

Henslow’s Sparrow Status: Summer resident. Data from current study: An uncommon grassland bird in this area whose local populations fluctuate widely depending on habitat availability. Observed in low numbers on the BBS count (Table 4.6) and in low-to-moderate numbers on the ACP Preserve bird transects (Table 4.5). Habitat mapping was conducted on the ACP Preserve in 2009 for this species when habitat was extensive. Henslow’s Sparrow has been present on ACP Preserve each year except when all or most of the Preserve is burned. Habitat: Tallgrass prairie (and occasionally other grasslands) that contains a large amount of litter from the previous growing season. Thus, burned or heavily-grazed rangeland does not provide suitable habitat due to insufficient grass cover. However, grazed prairie one year post-burn often supported this sparrow and sometimes in large numbers, especially following wet years with strong vegetation growth and where stocking rates were light. Threats: Agricultural conversion of grasslands, woodland invasion, and range management practices that preclude suitable habitat, such as annual burning and heavy grazing, such as early season double stocking. The species responds well to appropriate grassland management and may rapidly colonize suitable habitat.

Loggerhead Shrike Status: Summer resident. Data from current study: Shrikes were recorded in low density on the BBS route (Table 4.6) and on transect surveys (Table 4.5). One adult was observed at stops 24 and 26 on the BBS route conducted 14 June 2008. In addition, one shrike was recorded on Transect 7 (Unit 1) on ACP

Preserve on 12 June 2008. Given the high survey effort, the few shrike observations obtained indicate that the breeding population is marginal in this area. Habitat: The Loggerhead Shrike prefers areas with short vegetation near elevated perches for foraging and isolated trees or large shrubs for nest sites. Suitable habitat appears to be widespread in the study area, yet shrike populations are small, a situation that is widespread in the Midwest and eastern Great Plains. Threats: Various factors have been suggested in the decline of shrike populations in the central U.S., but the evidence to support them is limited (Pruit 2000). Loss of habitat, both on breeding and wintering areas, is one factor in shrike declines (Cade and Woods 1997).

Northern Bobwhite Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: Bobwhite quail were recorded on both the BBS survey (Table 4.6) and on the Preserve (Table 4.5). The high numbers recorded in the BBS counts (24 in 2008 and 32 birds in 2009) suggest the area supports a large population. Southern Anderson County may support one of the stronger quail populations in the Osage Cuestas of eastern Kansas. Habitat: Grassland with a significant shrub component. Characteristics of quail habitat are well documented. In the study area, habitat is plentiful, but would benefit from more early succession (short-statured) woody vegetation and fewer mature trees. Threats: In the study area, threats appear to be largely habitat-related and include woody succession that has resulted in more mature trees and a reduced shrub component, broadcast herbicide treatment that decreases forb diversity and food supply, and incompatible grazing practices.

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Status: Summer resident. Data from current study: Uncommon to common breeder. Recorded in moderate numbers on BBS count (Table 4.6) and in low numbers on transect surveys (Table 4.5). The study area is near the northeastern edge of the species range and its abundance is not high in this area. Habitat: Open areas, usually grassland, with isolated trees for nesting and as perches. Commonly associated with tallgrass prairie, but also frequents fields and open suburban areas. Threats: Habitat loss or degradation due to agricultural and urban development. However, Scissor- tailed Flycatchers exhibit habitat flexibility and now occur in suburban settings. Populations are stable in eastern Kansas based on BBS data (USGS 2010).

Short-eared Owl Status: Migrant/winter resident. Data from current study: The Short-eared Owl was not detected during this study. However, this species has been observed frequently in Anderson and surrounding counties where it occurs primarily as a late season migrant. Breeding has been recorded infrequently in eastern Kansas. Winter reports of Short-eared Owl in the area were made during the study period by other individuals. No targeted surveys were conducted. Habitat: Grassland, fields and other open areas, preferably with moderate to dense herbaceous cover.

Threats: A widely-distributed species, the Short-eared Owl has experienced population declines in the U.S. and Canada. Threats are believed to be primarily habitat loss due to agricultural development, woody succession, and other sources.

Smith’s Longspur Status: Migrant/winter resident. Data from current study: Due to the seasonal timing of occurrence and habitat requirements of Smith’s Longspur, a targeted species survey was conducted in this study. On 14 November 2009, Galen Pittman and Bill Busby surveyed potential habitat on ACP Preserve and adjoining properties from 8-10am by checking sites from the road by listening and watching for longspurs in Units 9, 10, and 13 from the county road and in Unit 5 by walking through the unit on foot. No longspurs were observed in Unit 9 or 10. Approximately 100 Smith’s Longspurs flew from a prairie hay meadow directly across the county road west of Unit 13 and circled off to the south. In walking through Unit 5, a total of approximately 25 Smith’s Longspurs were observed in several small flocks. These observations indicate that this is an important area for this species. However, more information is needed before conclusions about abundance, migration, and habitat needs can be made. Habitat: During migration and winter in Kansas, Smith’s Longspur prefers open prairie with short to mid-height vegetation. Often the species is encountered in hay meadows or pastures with short grass. It is reported to feed on seeds of three-awn (Aristida sp.), a late-maturing grass that often occurs in hayed and heavily-grazed sites in eastern Kansas. Many of the birds observed in this study were in areas where three-awn was present and were presumably feeding on grass seeds. Threats: Unknown. The remote high latitude breeding grounds are not covered by BBS, and little information is available on its conservation status. Smith’s Longspurs have a small wintering range in the central U.S. The degree to which the species might be limited by winter habitat such as prairie hay meadow or has abundant winter habitat is unclear.

Crawfish Frog Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: Crawfish Frog was recorded during spring anuran surveys (Table 4.7) in March and April in 2008 and 2009. Crawfish Frogs were documented to be common and widely distributed within the study area. There was a north-south gradient in abundance along the survey route, with more Crawfish Frogs detected in the southern part of the route. This pattern is likely due to the steeper, hilly terrain in the northern part of the route where shallow, well-drained soils probably provides little suitable habitat for burrowing crayfish and the crayfish-hole dependent Crawfish Frog. The largest populations were detected at the southern end of the route where the terrain is gentler and soils deeper. Habitat: Populations of the Crawfish Frog in Kansas are associated with burrows of crayfish (Cambarus diogenes), which they occupy for most of the year. Thus, suitable habitat must include areas with this crayfish, which consists of low or marshy areas with deep soils that retain water, typically silt or clay loam soils with clay subsoils (Grow and Merchant 1980). Crawfish Frogs in eastern Kansas are most often in or near tallgrass prairie, less commonly in cropland and planted grasslands (Busby and Brecheisen 1997). Threats: Habitat loss appears to be the primary threat. Conversion to agriculture has historically been the primary agent of habitat degradation and loss.

Massasauga Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: No targeted surveys for the Massasauga were conducted during this study. Individuals were occasionally observed incidental to other work on the Preserve. Prior to this study, four Massasaugas, two live and two dead on the road, were reported on a Kansas Herpetological Society survey to ACP Preserve on 21 April 2007 (Busby and Pisani 2007). Overall, this snake appears to be common, if not frequently encountered, in the area. Habitat: Tallgrass prairie and other open areas, both in floodplain and upland sites. More common in wetlands and mesic sites with well-developed herbaceous growth. Threats: Rangewide, the Massasauga has experienced a major range contraction that may be due to loss of open grassland habitat, primarily as a result of agricultural development and forest succession. In eastern Kansas, the status of this snake is not well understood, but appears to be absent in many areas, yet present in good numbers in others, especially those where native prairie remains an important landcover type.

Prairie Mole Cricket Status: Year-round resident. Data from current study: Surveys for the Prairie Mole Cricket were conducted in May 2009 at several sites on and around the Preserve. The only site were the species was detected was at Sunset Prairie, a 160-acre hay meadow located one mile north and one mile west of Welda. Crickets were previously known from this site. Based on earlier studies, the Prairie Mole Cricket is known from only three sites in the vicinity of the Preserve and is not found on the Preserve itself. However, more field work is needed in other parts of the county. Habitat: Upland tallgrass prairie with loose soil characteristics (silty or sandy loam) that facilitate burrowing. Found in high-quality prairie hay meadows in the Osage Cuestas and in grazed prairie in the Chautauqua Hills. In the eastern part of its range (Missouri, Arkansas, and the eastern edge of Kansas and Oklahoma) where clay-dominated soils are widespread, it is largely restricted to high-quality hay meadows, perhaps because such sites retain less compacted loess soils. Threats: Loss and degradation of tallgrass prairie habitat are the primary known threats.

Arogos Skipper, Bysuss Skipper, Ottoe Skipper and Regal Fritillary Status: All are year-round residents. Data from current study: Arogos Skippe and Regal Fritillary were observed in the Preserve and surrounding area (see Appendices A and B for details). The Bysuss Skipper was not observed in this study and Ottoe Skipper was found only in Chase County.

4.4. HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL

Invasive weed control was conducted by a private contractor (Mr. Craig Reyer, Strong City, Kansas). Mr. Reyer and his crew were hired to spot spray sericea lespedeza and conducted this work on July 20 - 21, 2009. They concentrated their efforts on the South Tract (160 acres) and approximately 80 acres in the core area where known infestations were located. In addition, they surveyed the remainder of the core area (970 acres) for isolated sericea lespedeza plants and spot sprayed the few small occurrences detected.

4.4. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Presentations, tours, and cooperative activities related to ACP Preserve during the project period are listed below in chronological order:

September 2008. Presentation at the Patch-Burn Grazing conference by Dean Kettle and Bill Busby, ―Management and research at the Anderson County Prairie Preserve.‖ Aurora, NE.

October 17-18, 2008. Members of the Westar Green Team (6 - 8 people), KBS (3 people), and TNC (1 person) worked clearing trees from two locations at the Preserve: near ponds by hay meadows along U.S. Highway 169, and from the extreme northeast corner of Unit 3. 6 - 11 people total.

November 8, 2008. Tour of the Preserve for University of Kansas, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology faculty, staff, and students. 8 people.

March 31, 2009. Professionals workshop sponsored by KBS. General presentation and discussion for local and regional NRCS, KDWP, and USDA personnel. USDA-NRCS building, Garnett, KS. 12 people.

May 6, 2009. Tour of the Preserve for Kansas State University Biology Department faculty, staff, and students. 10 people.

May 20, 2009. Public program sponsored by KBS. ―Management of Native Grasslands in Anderson County.‖ Presentation introducing the Preserve (by KBS) with discussion of management for rangelands (by USDA-NRCS, KDWP, and TNC). Anderson County Community Building, Garnett, KS. 31 people.

September 11, 2009. Presentation to the Northeast Kansas Regional Upland Bird Partnership by Bill Busby, ―Priority birds and habitat at Anderson County Prairie Preserve.‖ Manhattan, KS. 30 people.

September 15, 2009. Tour of the Preserve for Kansas Rural Center staff and directors. 6 people.

May 22, 2010. Tour of the Preserve by the Kansas Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. 60 people.

LITERATURE CITED

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. Rev. and expanded (First edition, 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (Rev.), Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service 108 p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000.

Busby, W. H., and W. R. Brecheisen. 1997. Chorusing phenology and habitat associations of the crawfish frog, Rana areolata (Anura: Ranidae), in Kansas. Southwestern Naturalist 42(2):210-217.

Busby, W. H. and G. R. Pisani. 2007. Welda spring field trip. Journal Kansas Herpetology 22:12.

Cade, T. J. and C. P. Woods. 1997. Changes in distribution and abundance of the Loggerhead Shrike. Conservation Biology 11:21-31.

Cutler, W. G. 1883. History of the State of Kansas. A. T. Andreas, Chicago, Illinois.

Ely, C., M. Schwilling, and M. Rolfs. 1986. An Annotated List of the Butterflies of Kansas. Fort Hays Studies, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas. 224 pp.

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604-614.

Grow, L. and H. Merchant. 1980. The Burrow Habitat of the Crayfish, Cambarus diogenes diogenes (Girard). American Midland Naturalist 103(2): 231-237.

KDWP. 2005. A Future for Kansas Wildlife: Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, KS. 147 pp.

KDWP. 2010. Annual survey data for prairie chickens. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. http://kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Other-Services/Research-Publications.

Kansas State University. 2006. Kansas State University, Research and Extension, Weather Data Library, http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/Maps/Climatic/DataTables.asp (accessed 12 December 2006).

Kettle, W. D, V. Salisbury, W. H. Busby, C. C. Freeman, and K. Kindscher. 2007. Ecological Management Plan for the Anderson County Prairie Preserve. Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS. 27 pp.

Kindscher, K, W. H. Busby, R. Craft, J. M. Delisle, C. C. Freeman, H. Kilroy, Q. Long, H. Loring, R. Moranz, and F. Norman. 2009. A Natural Areas Inventory of Anderson and Linn

Counties in Kansas. Open-File Report No. 158. Kansas Biological Survey. Lawrence, KS. iv+73 pp.

Limb, R. F., K. R. Hickman, D. M. Engle, J. E. Norland, and S. D. Fuhlendorf. 2007. Digital photography: Reduced investigator variation in visual obstruction measurements for Southern Tallgrass Prairie. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:548-552.

Nobis, M. 2005. SideLook 1.1 – Imaging software for the analysis of vegetation structure with true- colour photographs; http://www.appleco.ch.

Pruit, L. 2000. Loggerhead shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, IN.

Taft, J. B., G. S. Wilhelm, D. M. Ladd, and L. A. Masters. 1997. Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois: a method for assessing vegetation integrity. Erigenia 15:3–23.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Osage Plains/Flint Hills Prairie Ecoregional Planning Team. 2000. Ecoregional conservation in the Osage Plains / Flint Hills Prairie. The Nature Conservancy, Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 48 pp. + 73 appendices.

USDA. 1977. Soil survey of Anderson County, Kansas. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (K. H. Sallee), in cooperation with Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008. North American Amphibian Monitoring Program. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/naamp/.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2010. North American Breeding Bird Survey. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs.

APPENDIX A. Butterfly Monitoring Report for 2008

BUTTERFLY MONITORING IN THE ANDERSON COUNTY PRAIRIES CONSERVATION AREA: YEAR 1 (2008)

A report to the Kansas Biological Survey 2101 Constant Avenue Lawrence, KS 66047

By Ray Moranz Moranz Biological Consulting LLC 4514 North Davis Court Stillwater, OK 74075

January 19, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2005, the State of Kansas selected 10 butterfly species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and indicated the need for more field data on these species. Nine of the 10 SGCN butterflies have been recorded within 100 miles of Anderson County, and thus it is feasible that they may occur in Anderson County. In 2008, at the request of the Kansas Biological Survey, I initiated a butterfly monitoring program in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area (ACPCA), with a focus on units of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve (ACPP). I surveyed the abundance of the entire butterfly fauna using three sampling methods: line transect, non-random walk, and butterfly/flower head surveys. I observed 46 butterfly species in the ACPCA, but only two SGCN butterflies: Speyeria idalia (regal fritillary) and Danaus plexippus (monarch). Speyeria idalia were never seen in large numbers except at Sunset Prairie hay meadow. The scarcity of S. idalia and the failure to observe any SGCN skippers were likely due to excessive prescribed burning in the recent past; annual haying may also have contributed to declines. I recommend reducing the extent of prescribed fires, and instituting patch-burn grazing within current grazing units.

INTRODUCTION

Statement of Purpose

The primary purpose of this report is to provide the Kansas Biological Survey and The Nature Conservancy with results from butterfly monitoring that I performed in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area (ACPCA) during the summer of 2008. Additionally, I interpret those results, and recommend management practices for maintenance and/or enhancement of populations of butterfly Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the ACPCA.

Background Information

Butterfly Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)

During the development of Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan, 10 butterfly species were selected as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) (Wasson et al. 2005) (Table 1). Of these 10 species, all but the monarch (Danaus plexippus) are considered at least somewhat imperiled globally, and are of particular concern for conservation in Kansas (as demonstrated by their classification into Tiers 1 and 2 of the ranking process). Butterfly SGCN That Inhabit Tallgrass Prairie Of the 10 butterfly SGCN in Kansas, seven inhabit tallgrass prairie, and have potential for occurring in the prairies of the ACPCA: Atrytone arogos (arogos skipper), Danaus plexippus

(monarch), Erynnis martialis (mottled duskywing), Hesperia attalus attalus (dotted skipper), Hesperia ottoe (ottoe skipper), Problema byssus (byssus skipper), and Speyeria idalia (regal fritillary) (Table 1). Of these seven, five favor open prairie, whereas D. plexippus is a habitat generalist, and E. martialis prefers savannahs and clumps of shrubs amidst prairie rather than open prairie.

Butterfly SGCN That Inhabit Woodland and Forest

Due to their dependence on Chasmanthium latifolium (Indian woodoats) as their larval host plant, two of Kansas’ butterfly SGCN inhabit streamside habitat in forests rather than prairie: Amblyscirtes linda (Linda’s roadside skipper) and Amblyscirtes belli (Bell’s roadside skipper) (Opler et al. 2006). Prior to this study, neither of these species has been recorded in Anderson County, but both have been recorded in adjacent counties, and thus have a reasonable chance of occupying the appropriate habitat in Anderson County. Within The Nature Conservancy’s Anderson County Prairie Preserve (ACPP), the only habitat that is potentially acceptable to these species is the streamside woodland in Unit 3.

Butterfly Flight Periods

All of the nine SGCN that have potential to occur within the ACPCA are actively flying during part or all of June and July; efforts to study these species should occur chiefly during these two months (Table 2). Seven of the species also have been recorded in Kansas in May, and six have been recorded in August, therefore sampling during May and August also has value.

Objectives

1) To design and establish one or more monitoring protocols that can be used in perpetuity to monitor butterfly abundance.

2) To determine baseline abundances of each butterfly species.

3) To compare these abundances with abundances at other sites in the region.

4) To interpret results with regard to past management regimes and changes in management from 2008 to 2009.

5) To guide future management activities as part of an adaptive management framework.

METHODS

Sites Visited in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area (ACPCA)

In 2008, I sampled all units of Anderson County Prairie Preserve (ACPP) except Unit 8. After quickly perusing the vegetation in Unit 8, and reviewing notes from KBS indicating that Units 7 and 8 are old field sites, I concluded that Unit 8 lacked the floristic quality needed to support S. idalia and the SGCN skippers. Outside of the ACPP, I sampled a 40 acre parcel of Sunset Prairie. Sunset Prairie is a 160 acre hay meadow located northwest of Welda, south and east of the intersection of Kiowa Road and 1100 Road. The 40 parcel I sampled is ½ mile long (north-south) by 1/8 mile wide, and is located at the east end of Sunset Prairie. I was granted permission to survey this parcel by Mr. John Walter, the gentleman who mows it for hay. He informed me that his family has been mowing hay in this prairie for over 70 years. I also sampled butterflies in the Brian Adams Hay meadow, located immediately east of the 40 acre parcel of Sunset Prairie mentioned above. I sampled in the ACPCA on the following 11 dates in 2008: June 10-15, July 3, July 13- 15, and August 6 (Table 3). Nine different management regimes were represented in the sites I visited (Table 4).

Sampling Methods

Overview My primary sampling methodology was the line transect survey. For the last two decades, line transect surveys have been the most commonly used technique for assessing the relative abundance of butterflies in ecological research (Collier et al. 2006, Rudolph et al. 2006) as well as monitoring (Brown and Boyce 1998, Powell et al. 2007). This sampling technique consists of recording the numbers of each butterfly species seen while slowly walking a randomly-selected transect route. Although random transect placement reduces bias, it also is less efficient at detecting rare species than non-random surveys. To increase my chances of detecting butterfly SGCN, I developed two other sampling methods: ―Butterfly/Flower Head Surveys‖ and ―Non-random Walk Surveys‖. Details on these three methods are provided below.

Line transect surveys Line transect routes were straight, and were placed randomly within each unit, except all portions of each transect route were at least 50 m from unit boundaries (to avoid edge effects) and 50 m from the nearest transect route (to minimize repeat sightings). Transects ranged in length from 100 m to 600 m. Coordinates of the endpoints of each line transect have been saved via Garmin GPS units in the WGS 84 coordinate system, and will be provided to the Kansas Biological Survey later in 2009. Most sampling was performed during weather conditions appropriate for butterfly flight (temperature > 20 ºC, cloud cover < 70%, wind < 20 km/hr), but some sampling was performed under heavy cloud cover as long as temperatures surpassed 20 ºC and there was no precipitation. During sampling, I walked each transect at a speed of 1.2 km/hr and recorded data on butterflies seen within the 180º field of view spanning from the observer’s left to the observer’s right. Data 49 were collected in 100 m transect segments, allowing for future calculation of the species richness of each segment. Each butterfly was identified to the species level if possible and its behavior when first detected was recorded. If a butterfly was nectaring, I recorded the plant species upon which it nectared. This permitted me to later determine which nectar sources were used most frequently during each sampling session.

Butterfly/Flower Head Surveys Butterfly/flower head surveys involved non-random inspection of preferred nectar plants for butterflies. I quantified my observations by recording the number of flower heads inspected and the number of butterflies of each species nectaring on those flower heads. In my opinion, this is the most efficient means of detecting the SGCN skippers that use tallgrass prairie (Atrytone arogos, Erynnis martialis, Hesperia attalus, H. ottoe, and Problema byssus), as these species are difficult to notice and identify except when they are nectaring (Moranz et al. in prep).

Non-random Walk Surveys Non-random walk surveys consist of recording butterfly observations while walking in a non-random fashion, without recording the precise waypoints of the walk. Though clearly less repeatable and more biased than line transect surveys, they were a means to maximize the dividends of time spent doing field work. I often performed non-random walk surveys while (1) walking from my vehicle to the starting point of a line transect survey, (2) walking from the end point of one transect to the start point of another, (3) returning to my vehicle from a line transect survey, and (4) when searching for butterflies at special landscape features such as pond margins, stream margins, roadsides, etc. During non-random walk surveys, I walked at a pace of approximately 2 km/hour. Though I know the lengths of only a few of these surveys, I did record the amount of time spent on each one.

RESULTS

Line Transect Survey Results

Overview of 2008 Data I observed 46 different butterfly species during line transect surveys in summer of 2008. Unfortunately, I saw no Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) skippers during any of these surveys. Even skipper species that are common at most grasslands in the region were very sparse relative to most other sites I have sampled (for instance, southwestern Missouri in 2006 and 2007, and Chase County, Kansas in 2007 and 2008). Small numbers of Speyeria idalia were seen during each of the sampling periods (mid-June, early July, mid-July, and early August); detailed results for those sampling periods will be provided below.

Mid-June After seeing no S. idalia in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area (ACPCA) from June 10-12, I saw 11 S. idalia on June 13th (three during a non-random walk survey at Sunset Prairie and eight along Missouri Road approximately 0.6 miles north of SW 800 Road). 50

Subsequently, eight individuals were observed during a single 600 m line transect survey at Sunset Prairie. In the Anderson County Prairie Preserve, only two individuals of Speyeria idalia were observed during 14 line transect surveys (comprising 5874 m) in mid June, with one individual seen at Unit 2 and one seen at Unit 11. After grouping data from sites having the same management regime (Table 5), all current management regimes had very low numbers of S. idalia, ranging from 0.0 to 0.4 individuals/100 m. In comparison, the recently burned hay meadows in the Kansas City area (Powell et al. 2007) averaged 0.9 individuals/100 m and unburned hay meadows averaged 2.7 individuals/100 m in 2005. Perhaps even more surprising is the low abundance in the ACPCA when compared to the patch-burned, ungrazed prairies managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation in southwestern Missouri, which averaged 2.4 individuals/100 m in 2007 (Moranz et al. Draft manuscript a).

Early July On July 3rd, I sampled a 600 m long fixed transect at Sunset Prairie. I saw 13 S. idalia, making it the single most productive transect with regards to this species during the summer. S. idalia was more abundant in the southern half of the prairie (which transitions from mesic to hydria prairie) than the more xeric northern half.

Mid-July Between July 13th and 15th, I sampled numerous fixed length transects, but saw only six S. idalia at all sites combined. These were observed at five different sites, and these sites represented a variety of management regimes. Amazingly, though there are over 20 species of grass skippers that could occur in the area, I saw only four individuals representing two common, habitat-generalist species (Table 6).

Early August On August 6, 2008, I sampled transects in ACPP Units 1, 4, 9, and 10. I observed three S. idalia while walking a 400 m transect in Unit 4, but observed none in the other units.

Nectar Plant Use

Mid-June During mid-June, of 178 butterflies observed during line transect surveys, 39 were observed nectaring. Of these 39, 34 were nectaring on Echinacea pallida, whereas the other five nectaring butterflies were visiting one of five other plant species (Table 7). Twenty-eight of the nectaring butterflies were hesperiids (grass skippers), and 26 of those 28 were seen on E. pallida. These results closely mimic those that I obtained in southwestern Missouri, where E. pallida also appears to be the most important June nectar source for butterflies in general and for hesperiids and S. idalia in particular.

Mid-July In mid-July, I observed 380 butterflies during line transect surveys, but only 17 were nectaring (Table 8). Relative to work I’ve done elsewhere, whether in southwestern Missouri or Chase County, KS, the proportion of butterflies seen nectaring in ACPCA was very low. I saw three S. idalia nectaring during this period, with one on Liatris pycnostachya and two on

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium. Both of these species are important nectar sources for S. idalia in southwestern Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep). Butterfly/Flower Head Survey Results

Mid-June In mid-June 2008, I performed butterfly/flower head surveys at four sites: ACPP Units 2, 3, North Quarter, and at the Triangle Hay meadow. While inspecting a combined total of 4840 flower heads of Echinacea pallida, I observed 76 butterflies representing 13 species nectaring on E. pallida (Table 9). I saw just a single S. idalia individual during these surveys, at the North Quarter Unit. This was an important sighting, as I did not see any S. idalia during fixed length transects at this unit.

Early July I performed butterfly/Monarda fistulosa (wild bergamot) surveys at ACPP Unit 3 on July 3rd. During my inspection of 769 flowering heads of M. fistulosa, I observed a single Calycopis cecrops (red-banded hairstreak) nectaring at these heads (Table 9). I had expected to find many more nectaring butterflies, because I had found Monarda fistulosa to be an exceptionally important nectar plant for S. idalia and other large butterflies during my dissertation research in southwestern Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep.). On July 3rd at Sunset Prairie, I inspected approximately 450 heads of Pycnanthemum tenuifolium (slender mountain mint) and approximately 750 umbels of Asclepias sullivantii. I saw no butterflies whatsoever on the P. tenuifolium, and just a single S. idalia on the A. sullivantii (Table 9). Once again, I was surprised to find so few butterflies on two valued nectar plants.

Mid-July On July 13th, I performed a butterfly/Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush) survey along the pond at the southern end of ACPP Unit 10. Upon inspection of 240 heads of C. occidentalis, I observed nine butterflies representing three species nectaring (Table 9). None of these were SGCN butterflies, however. In past field work in Oklahoma and Missouri, I have typically found much greater numbers of butterflies on Cephalanthus occidentalis, including SGCN such as S. idalia and Atrytone arogos.

August On August 6th, I inspected 115 flowering ramets of Liatris pycnostachya in ACPP Unit 9 for butterflies, and found none (Table 9). On that same date, I inspected 13 flower heads of C. occidentalis and 100 flowering ramets of L. pycnostachya in ACPP Unit 10, and saw nothing but a single Phyciodes tharos (pearl crescent), which was nectaring on C. occidentalis.

Non-random Walk Survey Results

During summer 2008, I performed 28 non-random walk surveys and one survey from a slowly moving vehicle. I failed to make any definitive observations of SGCN skippers during the non-random walk surveys (Table 10). Though I made one record of a possible Atrytone arogos (arogos skipper) at Sunset Prairie on June 14th, I now suspect that individual was probably Anatrytone logan (Delaware skipper), given that I captured multiple individuals of that species at Sunset Prairie and other sites within the ACPCA. 52

I did see 13 S. idalia during non-random walk surveys, including at sites where I did not see this species during fixed line transect surveys at these sites (ACPP North Quarter Unit on June 14th, ACPP Unit 12 on July 13th, and ACPP Unit 10 on August 8th) (Table 10). Four of the S. idalia were seen nectaring, with one on A. sullivantii, two on M. fistulosa, and one on a Trifolium pretense (red clover). The vehicular survey was productive, in that I observed eight S. idalia at a site that I did not expect to foster this species. These individuals were observed along Missouri Road, 0.85 miles south of 1000 Road. I stopped my vehicle, and noticed that the S. idalia were flying from the road to the adjacent fescue pasture, and vice versa. This pasture still had a decent number of native forbs.

DISCUSSION

Why were there so few S. idalia?

The observed abundance of S. idalia in mid June was likely suppressed somewhat by the cool, wet spring that Anderson County experienced in 2008. In a normal year, a few males in eastern Kansas emerge on or around June 1st (William Busby, personal communication), and by mid-June, a large number of males and a few females have emerged (Powell et al. 2007). In 2008, the emergence of S. idalia in the ACPCA appears to have been delayed by 10 to 14 days as it was at some other sites in eastern Kansas (William Busby, personal communication). However, at all units except Sunset Prairie, numbers of S. idalia observed were very low during every sampling period. At Sunset Prairie, counts were comparable to those from the Kansas City hay meadows in 2005 (Powell et al. 2007). This implies that factors other than delayed emergence were influencing abundance of this species. Sunset Prairie is a native hay meadow that has been mowed annually for over 70 years, and has rarely burned during that time (John Walter, personal communication). Past research projects (Swengel 1996, Powell et al. 2007) have shown that unburned hay meadows often foster large populations of S. idalia. In contrast, all of the other sites I visited (except for ACPP Unit 9, Hay Triangle, and the Adams Hay meadow) had been burned within the previous year or two. Prescribed fire, when applied to entire management areas, can greatly reduce the abundance of S. idalia (Powell et al. 2007, Moranz et al. Draft manuscript c). I recorded a few S. idalia at both ACPP Unit 9 and the Hay Triangle. I suspect these sites would have had even more if so much of the surrounding landscape had not been burned in 2007 and/or 2008. Why so few grass skippers, and why no SGCN skippers? The paucity of grass skippers and the complete absence of SGCN skippers from my dataset were quite surprising. Given the large size and high floristic quality of many of the remnant prairies that I visited, and their location within the range of multiple SGCN skippers, I had expected to see Atrytone arogos at the very least, and perhaps also Hesperia ottoe and Problema byssus. Abundance of prairie skippers was reported to be very low in summer 2008 by lepidopterists in Oklahoma and Iowa. Perhaps their abundance in the ACPCA was held down by the same regional factors that purportedly kept numbers low in other states. However, as part of a scientific study of the effects of management regimes on butterfly abundance in Chase County, KS, my colleagues and I saw good numbers of grass skippers, including SGCN species Atrytone 53 arogos and Hesperia attalus from June 19-21, 2008 (Moranz et al. Draft manuscript c). Therefore, while I give some credence to the idea that 2008 was simply ―a bad year‖ for SGCN skippers in Anderson County, I also suspect that other factors are at play. As no one has collected data on butterfly abundance in the ACPCA in prior years, it will be very difficult to prove whether or not SGCN skippers once occurred in abundance at the sites I visited. However, due to the previously mentioned attributes of the ACPCA, I suspect it did harbor substantial populations of some of those species at one time, and that historic and recent management practices have greatly reduced the abundance of skipper SGCN. Of greatest concern is the great extent of prescribed fires in recent years. As with S. idalia, prescribed fire can greatly reduce and even eliminate populations of resident skipper species (Swengel 1998, Swengel and Swengel 1999, NatureServe 2009). Summer haying also may be detrimental to SGCN skippers in Kansas, as it has been for Hesperia dacotae (Dakota skipper) in the northern Great Plains (Swengel and Swengel 1999), because it can destroy immature stages (egg, larva, pupa) which reside in the vegetation.

What Are The Implications Of The Nectar Plant Utilization Data?

Some of the sites I visited had significant amounts of Echinacea pallida, which is good news with regard to conservation of SGCN butterflies, due to the great importance of E. pallida as a nectar source in June. However, upon analyzing my data for mid-July, I was amazed to find that so few butterflies were observed nectaring. I am unaware of scientific literature that calculates the minimum amount of nectar needed to support prairie butterfly populations, but research elsewhere has shown declines in butterfly populations due to lack of nectar (Schultz and Dlugosch 1999). I did not measure nectar plant abundance, but I suspect that most sites in the ACPCA do suffer from a dearth of nectar sources during the latter half of the summer. If true, the current haying and grazing regimes could be important causes, as both of these have been shown to reduce nectar plant abundance in some situations (Saarinen and Jantunen 2005, Moranz et al. Draft manuscript a). In ACPCA, the common practice of haying in early July seems likely to select against nectar plant species that don’t bloom until after this period.

Management Recommendations for Butterfly SGCN in the ACPCA

1) Reduce the extent of prescribed fires, and reduce the fire return interval at any given spot on the landscape.

I am an outspoken proponent of the use of fire for prairie management, and I have participated in dozens of prescribed burns in Oklahoma and Florida. However, while the KBS should continue to use prescribed fires in winter/spring to manage Anderson County Prairie Preserve (ACPP) sites for the benefit of multiple tallgrass prairie species, I recommend that KBS reduce the extent of these fires so as to incinerate fewer eggs, larvae, and pupae of full-year resident butterfly species, which includes all of the Kansas SGCN butterflies except for Danaus plexippus. I recommend that no more than 1/3 of a contiguous grassland be burned each year, and burning entire grasslands should be avoided. From research conducted in Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep.), burning 1/3 of a prairie each year appears to be compatible with maintenance of S. idalia populations, at least for the duration of our study period. In fact, in 2007 my colleagues and I

54 found S. idalia in greater abundance in RECENTLY BURNED patches than they had been in unburned hay meadows in the Kansas City area in 2005 (Powell et al. 2007). The effects of rotational burning on imperiled grassland skippers are still not clear, but it certainly is believed to be more favorable to these species than burning entire pastures, which has been shown to extirpate populations. Bottom line: the available science clearly shows that burning entire pastures often greatly reduces populations of imperiled grassland butterflies, thus this practice should be avoided when possible. Concerning the future of the ACPP, my hunch is that if the proportion of grassland burned each year is decreased or kept very low in all of the pastures and hay meadows, these sites will become valuable habitat for multiple SGCN butterfly species.

2) In cattle pastures, conduct patch-burn grazing.

Although rotational fire alone (patch-burning, no grazing) appears to be superior to patch-burn grazing for maintaining large populations of S. idalia in southwestern Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep.), patch-burn grazing pastures harbored this species at much higher densities than found at all ACPCA sites except for Sunset Prairie. A growing body of research indicates that the fire-grazing interaction was a dominant ecological process on the Great Plains, and perhaps also in the prairie peninsula region (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). Therefore, Kansas’ SGCN butterflies almost certainly evolved with this interaction as a major selective force, and are believed to be adapted to patch-burn grazing. For simplicity sake, consider treating Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 as a single patch-burn grazing pasture. Cut gaps in the fences that currently separate those four units from each other. Then, burn 1/5th to ½ of the pasture each year, and allow the cattle to distribute themselves freely within the pasture. At the North Quarter pasture, patch-burn grazing would benefit resident butterfly populations, but also has great potential to increase plant species diversity in the northern 1/3rd that has such high cover of Panicum virgatum. If only that third of the North Quarter is burned, and if cattle are in the pasture no more than 10 days after the burn, there is an excellent chance that they will focus their grazing efforts on this patch for much of the spring and summer. This would be likely to reduce the competitive edge of Panicum virgatum over other plants, allowing species diversity to increase. IMPORTANT: to get these effects, it is essential to have the cattle in the pasture within a few days after the post-burn regrowth begins, and it is also essential to have the stocking density high enough for the cattle to ―keep up‖ with the regrowth.

3) Keep some hay meadows free from fire for 4+ years

I am under the assumption that mowing hay meadows annually or biennially does a good job of eliminating woody plant seedlings. If this is true, then I see benefits to SGCN butterflies in keeping hay meadows free from fire for 4+ years.

4) Implement patch-haying in some of the hay meadows

The effects of haying on SGCN skippers in Kansas are unknown. Given that some of these skippers are believed to lay their eggs in June, July haying appears likely to be quite destructive to immatures of these species, while also temporarily eliminating nectar sources for 55 the adults. Some lepidopterists contend that late summer haying can help prairie-specialist skippers, but there is little evidence to support this. Just as with patch-burning, patch-haying should involve disturbing a part of a hay meadow each year, and rotating the disturbance from one patch to another each year.

5) Provide local landowners and land managers with extension literature that explains best management practices for maintaining biodiversity in tallgrass prairie pastures and hay meadows.

Monitoring Plans for 2009

In 2009, I plan to once again use all three of the butterfly sampling methods that I used in 2008. Line transect surveys are the most rigorous of these methods, and my field work will consist primarily of them, but the non-random methods may allow me to record additional species. As in 2008, I plan to perform the majority of my sampling in June and July.

Table 1. Status and natural history of the 10 butterfly species selected as ―Species of Greatest Conservation Need‖ in Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. Data are from (Opler et al. 2006).

Scientific name Common NatureServe Range Habitat Host plant Recorded In Kansas name Global Status Amblyscirtes Linda’s G2G3 6 states, centered on Along streams in Chasmanthium Franklin County only linda roadside Ozark Plateau relatively latifolium (adjacent to Anderson skipper undisturbed forests County). Amblyscirtes Bell’s roadside G4 13 states in South and along creeks in Chasmanthium in 10 counties (8 in SE belli skipper Mississippi Valley grassy areas in and latifolium Kansas, 2 near K.C.). at edges of woods; Not yet in Anderson also city gardens County, but in adjacent Woodson County. Atrytone arogos Arogos skipper G3G4 Over 20 states in Great Undisturbed native Andropogon In over 30 counties Plains, Deep South, and tallgrass, mixed gerardii and scattered throughout East Coast grass, short grass probably other state. Not yet in prairies; other grassy grasses Anderson Co., but in areas two adjacent counties (Franklin and Woodson). Danaus Monarch G5 Most of U.S. Various habitats Almost any Every county in the plexippus milkweed state. species Erynnis Mottled G3G4 Most of U.S. east of Various habitats, Ceanothus In 13 counties, 10 of martialis duskywing Great Divide, though including clumps of americanus; which are scattered has disappeared from shrubs within other throughout eastern KS, most of northeastern prairie, open woods Ceanothus spp. 3 in central KS. Not yet U.S and thickets, barrens elsewhere recorded from Anderson County or adjacent cos. Euphyes Two-spotted G4T1T2 7 states (CO, IL, IO, Marshes, bogs, wet Carex Found only in 1 county bimacula illinois skipper KS, MN, NE, WI); the streamsides, wet trichocarpa (the northwestern corner full species is G4 and sedge meadows of Kansas) common east to NJ

Scientific name Common NatureServe Range Habitat Host plant Recorded In Kansas name Global Status Hesperia attalus Dotted skipper G2G4 5 states (NE, KS, OK, Not known for Panicum In 10 counties of attalus TX, MO); the full certain; drier patches virgatum, southern Kansas, mostly species also occurs in in tallgrass and Leptoloma within 40 miles of OK southeastern states mixed grass prairies; cognatum, border. Not from short grass prairie?; Bouteloua Anderson or adjacent open crosstimbers? curtipendula, counties. Schizachyrium scoparium? Hesperia ottoe Ottoe skipper G3G4 16 states (all of the Tallgrass and mixed Andropogon In 28 Kansas counties. Central Grasslands grass prairie; gerardii, Mainly in western and states except NM) shortgrass prairie Schizachyrium central Kansas, but also also??? scoparium, six counties in eastern Bouteloua Kansas, including curtipendula, Franklin and Miami but Leptoloma NOT Anderson. cognatum

Problema byssus Byssus skipper G3G4 14 states in Central Unclear. Wet areas Tripsacum In 15 counties of eastern U.S. and Deep South in tallgrass prairie in dactyloides, KS (including Anderson MO, but dry prairie Andropogon Co.) and two in central or dry oak savanna gerardii Kansas. in IO & WI Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary G3 Central grasslands of Tallgrass prairie; Viola spp. In most Kansas the U.S.; PA and VA mixedgrass prairie; counties, including meadows in eastern Anderson County. U.S.

Table 2. Flight periods and number of broods of the 10 butterfly species selected as ―Species of Greatest Conservation Need‖ in Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan.

Scientific Common name (Ely et al. 1986) (Dole et al. 2004) (Heitzman and Heitzman 1987) Opler et al. 2006 (North name (KS) (OK, KS, n. TX) (MO) America) Amblyscirtes Bell’s roadside May 18 to September Mid-April to Several broods from mid-April to Three broods from April- belli skipper 3 Sept. mid-Sept. Sept. Amblyscirtes Linda’s roadside no data no data Three broods with dates from Two broods from April- linda skipper mid-April to early September July Atrytone Arogos skipper Probably two broods. May to July Two broods: June and mid- One brood from June-July arogos From May 28 to August into September in northern and western September 19. portions of range Danaus Monarch Multiple broods from no data Numerous broods plexippus April 11 to November 20. Erynnis Mottled Two broods from no data Two distinct broods: April into Two broods from April- martialis duskywing April 21 to May, and June into July. A few Sept. September 3 August records may be a partial 3rd brood Euphyes Two-spotted no data no data A single record: in Harrison Co. One brood in the north bimacula skipper on 6/23/2006 from June-July; two broods illinois in the south from May- August Hesperia Dotted skipper Two broods from May to Sept. ―in early summer‖ Two broods from May- attalus attalus May 27 to September Sept. with a longer flight 10 period in FL Hesperia ottoe Ottoe skipper One brood from May no data June One brood from June- 28 to August 1 August Problema Byssus skipper One brood, from June no data One brood in Missouri, with One brood from June-July byssus 25 to July 28, plus adults flying in June and July in Midwest; one from August 28. Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary One brood, from May Mid-June to Males begin emerging in early One brood from mid-June 25 to October 1 August June, followed in a few days by to mid-August the first females

Table 3. List of all butterfly surveys conducted in the Anderson County Prairie Conservation Area, summer 2008.

TRANSECT TOTAL DURATION DATE UNIT TREATMENT TRANSECT TYPE LENGTH (m) (hr:min:sec)

6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg Echinacea/BFLY survey unknown 1:00:00 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:56:00 6/11/2008 WELD03 Abg line transect 1081 1:35:45 6/11/2008 WELD03 Abg line transect 207 0:14:00 6/11/2008 WELD03Forest Gnb line transect 474 1:11:00 6/11/2008 WELD09 HAYpre line transect 372 0:26:30 6/11/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY line transect 265 0:17:06 6/11/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:04:00 6/11/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:40:00 6/12/2008 Adams Hay HAYpre line transect 200 0:14:15 6/12/2008 WELD01 Abg line transect 400 1:20:00 6/12/2008 WELD04 Bng line transect 200 0:12:15 6/12/2008 WELD05 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:10:30 6/12/2008 WELD06 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:13:30 6/13/2008 Hay Triangle HAYpre Echinacea/BFLY survey unknown 0:25:00 6/13/2008 WELDSQ Abg Echinacea/BFLY survey unknown 0:18:00 6/13/2008 WELD05 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:16:10 6/13/2008 WELD07 NOTHING line transect 200 0:16:00 6/13/2008 WELD09 HAYpre line transect 200 0:19:30 6/13/2008 WELDSQ Abg line transect 400 0:33:10 6/13/2008 Missouri Road FescuePasture Vehicular survey ~200 0:00:00 6/13/2008 Hay Triangle HAYpre non-random walk unknown 0:32:00 6/13/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre non-random walk unknown 0:45:30 6/13/2008 WELDSQ Abg non-random walk unknown 0:04:00 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng Echinacea/BFLY survey unknown 1:00:00 6/14/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre line transect 600 0:51:30 6/14/2008 WELD11 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:11:00 6/14/2008 WELD12 PARTBURN line transect 200 0:18:00

TRANSECT TOTAL DURATION DATE UNIT TREATMENT TRANSECT TYPE LENGTH (m) (hr:min:sec)

6/14/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:10:30 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng line transect 200 0:11:00 6/14/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre non-random walk ~600 0:44:00 6/14/2008 Sunset_SW HAYpre non-random walk ~50 0:05:00 6/14/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:04:00 6/14/2008 WELD14 BURN non-random walk unknown 0:10:00 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng non-random walk unknown 1:00:00 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng Echinacea/BFLY survey unknown 0:19:00 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng line transect 275 0:15:20 6/15/2008 WELD04 Bng line transect 400 0:29:00 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng non-random walk unknown 0:19:00 6/15/2008 WELD04 Bng non-random walk unknown 0:28:30 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre Asullivantii/BFLYsurvey 1200 0:36:30 7/3/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY Cephalanthus/BFLY survey 200 0:14:00 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre line transect 600 0:58:30 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg Monarda fistulosa/BFLY survey unknown 0:04:00 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg Monarda fistulosa/BFLY survey unknown 0:03:00 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg Monarda fistulosa/BFLY survey unknown 0:04:00 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk ~50 0:09:00 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre Pycnanthemum/BFLY survey 1200 0:36:30 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre non-random walk 600 0:36:30 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:28:00 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:20:00 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:17:00 7/3/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:23:00 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY Cephalanthus/BFLY survey unknown 0:33:00 7/13/2008 WELD09 HAYpre line transect 200 0:22:15 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY line transect 63 0:06:00 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY line transect 300 0:27:30 7/13/2008 WELD11 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:20:00 7/13/2008 WELD12 PARTBURN line transect 200 0:15:15 7/13/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:14:30 7/13/2008 WELD14 BURN line transect 100 0:07:20

TRANSECT TOTAL DURATION DATE UNIT TREATMENT TRANSECT TYPE LENGTH (m) (hr:min:sec) 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:20:00 7/13/2008 WELD11 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:06:00 7/13/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:26:00 7/13/2008 WELD14 BURN non-random walk unknown 0:05:00

7/14/2008 HAYTRIANGLE HAYpre line transect 100 0:07:15 7/14/2008 WELD01 Abg line transect 300 0:18:00 7/14/2008 WELD02 Bng line transect 250 0:19:10 7/14/2008 WELD02 Bng line transect 300 0:22:30 7/14/2008 WELD03 Abg line transect 400 0:30:00 7/14/2008 WELD04 Bng line transect 200 0:18:15 7/14/2008 WELD04 Bng line transect 400 0:36:30 7/14/2008 WELD05 BURNHAY line transect 200 0:11:00 7/14/2008 WELD06 BURNHAY line transect 300 0:21:15 7/14/2008 WELDSQ Abg line transect 400 0:31:00 7/14/2008 HAYTRIANGLE HAYpre non-random walk unknown 0:20:00 7/14/2008 WELD02 Bng non-random walk 250 0:20:00 7/14/2008 WELD04 Bng non-random walk unknown 0:08:00

7/15/2008 WELD01 Abg line transect 300 0:20:30 7/15/2008 WELD03 Abg line transect 200 0:18:00 7/15/2008 WELDNQ Bng line transect 300 0:21:30 7/15/2008 WELD01 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:07:00 7/15/2008 WELD03 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:15:00 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY Cephalanthus/BFLY survey unknown 0:05:00 8/6/2008 WELD01 Abg line transect 100 0:09:00 8/6/2008 WELD04 Bng line transect 400 0:36:15 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre line transect 200 0:18:30 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY line transect 300 0:16:00 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre Liatris pycnostachya/BFLY Survey unknown 0:05:00 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY Liatris pycnostachya/BFLY Survey unknown 0:15:00 8/6/2008 WELD01 Abg non-random walk unknown 0:10:00

8/6/2008 WELD04 Bng non-random walk unknown 0:23:00 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre non-random walk unknown 0:25:00 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY non-random walk unknown 0:18:00

Table 4. Butterfly monitoring sites and their management regimes in 2008.

NAME OF SITE MANAGEMENT REGIME DESCRIPTION OF REGIME ACPP Unit 1 BURNED & GRAZED burned and grazed in 2007 and 2008 ACPP Unit 2 BURNED NOT GRAZED burned in 2007 and 2008, grazed in 2007 but not at all or only very lightly in 2008 ACPP Unit 3 BURNED & GRAZED burned and grazed in 2007 and 2008 ACPP Unit 3 Forest GRAZED NOT BURNED cattle have access to forest ACPP Unit 4 BURNED NOT GRAZED burned in 2007 and 2008, grazed in 2007 but not at all or only very lightly in 2008 ACPP Unit 5 BURNED HAY MEADOW burned in 2008; hayed in most years ACPP Unit 6 BURNED HAY MEADOW burned in 2008; hayed in most years ACPP Unit 7 FAL fallow; old field that has not been mowed, hayed, or grazed in years ACPP Unit 9 HAY MEADOW hayed in July of 2007 and most recent years; little recent history of fire ACPP Unit 10 BURNED HAY MEADOW burned in 2007 AND 2008; hayed in most years ACPP Unit 11 BURNED HAY MEADOW burned in 2007 AND 2008; hayed in most years ACPP Unit 12 PB partly burned in 2008; also burned in 2007 ACPP Unit 13 BURNED HAY MEADOW burned in 2007 AND 2008; hayed in most years ACPP Unit 14 BUR burned in 2007 and 2008, with no recent history of grazing or haying ACPP North Quarter BURNED NOT GRAZED burned in 2007 and 2008; grazed in 2007 but not 2008* ACPP South Quarter BURNED & GRAZED burned and grazed in 2007 and 2008 Adams hay meadow HAY MEADOW hayed in July of 2007 and most recent years; little recent history of fire Hay Triangle HAY MEADOW hayed in July of 2007 and most recent years; little recent history of fire Missouri Road Fescue Pasture fescue pasture with substantial native cover Sunset_east HAY MEADOW hayed in July of 2007 and most recent years; little recent history of fire

* According to Mr. Tim Benson, ACPP North Quarter had 26 cattle placed on it on May 28, 2008. However, Mr. Benson also informed me that the cattle spent little or no time grazing in the northern third of the pasture, due to its high cover of Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), which they find relatively unpalatable once it exceeds a few inches in height. My transect was randomly placed in the northern third of the pasture, thus I deemed the site ―BURNED NOT GRAZED‖. In my field notes, I had indicated that I saw no signs of grazing, and instead found a patch of approximately 400 Silphium laciniatum (compass plant).

Table 5. Butterfly abundance (in number of individuals per 100m of transect) along fixed length transects in mid June 2008 (June 10-15) compared among units managed via different treatments in Anderson County, Kansas. BURNED & GRAZED = Burned and grazed in 2007 and 2008; BURNED NOT GRAZED = burned in 2007 and 2008, grazing in 2007 but little or none in 2008; BURNED HAY MEADOW = burned in 2008, hayed in July 2007 and most prior years; HAY MEADOW= hayed in July of 2007 and in most prior years; WLD = woodland ravine; FAL = fallow; PB = partly burned in 2008, with no grazing or haying in recent years. MANAGEMENT REGIMES BURNED BURNED BURNED HAY NOT HAY WLD FAL PB & GRAZED MEADOW GRAZED MEADOW (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=5) Species name Common Name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Abaeis nicippe sleepy orange 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Anaea andria goatweed leafwing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Anatrytone logan Delaware skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ancyloxypha numitor least skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atalopedes campestris sachem 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atrytone arogos arogos skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Battus philenor pipevine swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Callophrys gryneus juniper hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Calycopis cecrops red-banded hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celastrina neglecta summer azure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cercyonis pegala common wood nymph 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chlosyne sp. unknown checkerspot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Colias eurytheme orange sulphur 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.5 2.5 Colias philodice clouded sulphur 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.5 Colias sp. clouded / orange sulphur 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupido comyntas eastern tailed blue 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.5 5.0 Danaus plexippus monarch 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.5 Epargyreus clarus silver-spotted skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 Erynnis baptisiae wild indigo duskywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Erynnis sp. unknown duskywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Euphyes vestris dun skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Euptoieta claudia variegated fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eurytides marcellus zebra swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 Hesperiidae sp. unknown skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Junonia coenia common buckeye 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limentis archippus viceroy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lycaena dione gray copper 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

MANAGEMENT REGIMES BURNED BURNED BURNED HAY NOT HAY WLD FAL PB & GRAZED MEADOW GRAZED MEADOW (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=5) Species name Common Name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Lycaena hyllus bronze copper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Megisto cymela little wood satyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Papilio cresphontes giant swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 Papilio glaucus tiger swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Papilio polyxenes black swallowtail 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 2.5 2.0 Papilio sp. DARK unknown dark swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phoebis sennae cloudless sulphur 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phyciodes tharos pearl crescent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieridae sp.WHITE unknown white pierid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieridae sp.YELLOW unknown yellow pierid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieris rapae cabbage white 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Polites origenes crossline skipper 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polites themistocles tawny-edged skipper 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polygonia interrogationis question mark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pyrgus communis common checkered-skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pyrisitia lisa little yellow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Speyeria cybele great spangled fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Speyeria idalia regal fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Strymon melinus gray hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thorybes bathyllus southern cloudywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Thorybes pylades northern cloudywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Thorybes sp. unknown cloudywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 unknown grass skipper unknown grass skipper 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 Unknown spreadwing unknown spreadwing 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vanessa atalanta red admiral 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vanessa cardui painted lady 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vanessa virginiensis American lady 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Wallengrenia sp. northern broken-dash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Zerene cesonia southern dogface 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Buttterflies 1.9 0.3 1.4 0.6 1.4 0.4 3.6 0.4 2.7 7.5 15.0

Table 6. Butterfly abundance (in number of individuals per 100m of transect) along fixed length transects in JULY 2008 compared among management regimes in Anderson County, Kansas. All data are from July 13-15, except for data from column ―EJ* HAY‖, which were collected on July 3rd. BURNED & GRAZED = Burned and grazed in 2007 and 2008; BURNED NOT GRAZED = burned in 2007 and 2008, grazed in 2007 but not at all or only very lightly in 2008; BURNED HAY MEADOW = burned in 2008, hayed in July 2007 and most prior years; HAY MEADOW= hayed in July of 2007 and in most prior years; EJ*HAY = hayed in July of 2007 and in most prior years, with data collected on July 3rd; BUR = burned in 2008; with no recent history of grazing or haying; PB = partly burned in 2008, with no grazing or haying in recent years. MANAGEMENT REGIMES BURNED BURNED BURNED HAY EJ* NOT HAY BUR PB & GRAZED MEADOW HAY GRAZED MEADOW (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=3) (n=1) (n=3) (n=5) Species name Common Name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Abaeis nicippe sleepy orange 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Anaea andria goatweed leafwing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Anatrytone logan Delaware skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ancyloxypha numitor least skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atalopedes campestris sachem 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Atrytone arogos arogos skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Battus philenor pipevine swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Callophrys gryneus juniper hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Calycopis cecrops red-banded hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Celastrina neglecta summer azure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cercyonis pegala common wood nymph 4.6 1.3 2.7 0.7 3.5 1.0 12.3 2.7 0.7 2.0 0.0 Chlosyne sp. unknown checkerspot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Colias eurytheme orange sulphur 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Colias philodice clouded sulphur 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Colias sp. clouded / orange sulphur 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cupido comyntas eastern tailed blue 2.2 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.0 5.0 Danaus plexippus monarch 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.0 2.5 Epargyreus clarus silver-spotted skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Erynnis baptisiae wild indigo duskywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Erynnis sp. unknown duskywing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Euphyes vestris dun skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Euptoieta claudia variegated fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eurytides marcellus zebra swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hesperiidae sp. unknown skipper 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Junonia coenia common buckeye 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 Limentis archippus viceroy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MANAGEMENT REGIMES

BURNED BURNED HAY BURNED HAY NOT HAY early BUR PB & GRAZED MEADOW GRAZED MEADOW July (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=3) (n=3) (n=5) (n=1) Species name Common Name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Lycaena dione gray copper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lycaena hyllus bronze copper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Megisto cymela little wood satyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Papilio cresphontes giant swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Papilio glaucus tiger swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Papilio polyxenes black swallowtail 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 Papilio sp. DARK unknown dark swallowtail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phoebis sennae cloudless sulphur 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phyciodes tharos pearl crescent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieridae sp.WHITE unknown white pierid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieridae sp.YELLOW unknown yellow pierid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pieris rapae cabbage white 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polites origenes crossline skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polites themistocles tawny-edged skipper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Polygonia interrogationis question mark 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pyrgus communis common checkered-skipper 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pyrisitia lisa little yellow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Speyeria cybele great spangled fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Speyeria idalia regal fritillary 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Strymon melinus gray hairstreak 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thorybes bathyllus southern cloudywing 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thorybes pylades northern cloudywing 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thorybes sp. unknown cloudywing 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 unknown grass skipper unknown grass skipper 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown spreadwing unknown spreadwing 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vanessa atalanta red admiral 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Vanessa cardui painted lady 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vanessa virginiensis American lady 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 Wallengrenia sp. northern broken-dash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Zerene cesonia southern dogface 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Butterflies 7.6 2.1 6.2 2.1 6.5 1.5 13.5 2.9 6.8 6.0 11.5

Table 7. Nectar plants visited by butterfly species observed in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area in mid June 2008.

Allium Apocynum Echinacea Erigeron Leucanthemum Psoralidium Not seen Grand Scientific Name canadense cannabinum pallida strigosus vulgare tenuiflorum nectaring Total Anaea andria 1 1 Anatrytone logan 1 1 Chlosyne sp. 1 1 Colias eurytheme 16 16 Colias philodice 1 1 6 8 Cupido comyntas 24 24 Danaus plexippus 1 17 18 Epargyreus clarus 2 2 Euphyes vestris 1 1 Eurytides marcellus 3 3 Hesperiidae sp. 1 1 Junonia coenia 4 4 Lycaena dione 1 1 1 3 Megisto cymela 1 1 Papilio cresphontes 3 3 Papilio polyxenes 32 32 Pieris rapae 1 1 Polites origenes 6 6 Polites themistocles 1 13 1 1 16 Pyrisitia lisa 1 1 Speyeria idalia 1 9 10 Thorybes bathyllus 1 1 Thorybes pylades 1 1 2 unknown grass skipper 6 2 8 Unknown spreadwing 1 1 Vanessa atalanta 1 1 Vanessa virginiensis 2 1 8 11 Wallengrenia sp. 1 1 Total Butterflies 1 1 34 1 1 1 139 178

Table 8. Nectar plants visited by butterfly species observed in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area in mid July 2008.

Pycnan- Liatris Monarda themum Rud- Amorpha Asclepias Erigeron pycno- citri- tenui- Trifolium beckia Vernonia Not seen Grand Scientific Name canescens verticillata strigosus stachya odora folium pratense hirta baldwinii nectaring Total Abaeis nicippe 1 1 Atalopedes campestris 3 3 Cercyonis pegala 1 6 1 197 205 Chlosyne sp. 1 1 Colias eurytheme 22 22 Colias philodice 2 2 Colias sp. 1 1 Cupido comyntas 1 1 86 88 Danaus plexippus 14 14 Euptoieta claudia 2 2 Hesperiidae sp. 1 1 Junonia coenia 5 5 Papilio polyxenes 5 5 Pieridae sp.WHITE 1 1 Pieridae sp.YELLOW 1 1 Pyrgus communis 1 6 7 Speyeria cybele 1 1 Speyeria idalia 1 2 3 6 Strymon melinus 1 1 Thorybes bathyllus 2 2 Thorybes pylades 1 1 Thorybes sp. 1 1 2 unknown grass skipper 1 1 Unknown spreadwing 3 3 Vanessa atalanta 1 1 Vanessa virginiensis 1 1 1 3 Grand Total 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 363 380

Table 9. Survey information and results from 2008 butterfly/flowerhead surveys in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area.

Duration Date Unit Treatment Start Time Finish Time (h:min:sec) Scientific Name No. of indiv. 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Echinacea pallida 1170 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Anatrytone logan 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Colias eurytheme 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Danaus plexippus 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Hesperiidae sp. 3 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Polites origenes 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Polites themistocles 8 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Vanessa atalanta 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Vanessa cardui 1 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg 4:41:00 PM 5:41:00 PM 1:00:00 Vanessa virginiensis 5 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANG. HAYpre 3:20:00 PM 3:52:00 PM 0:25:00 Echinacea pallida 678 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANG. HAYpre 3:20:00 PM 3:52:00 PM 0:25:00 Polites origenes 4 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANG. HAYpre 3:20:00 PM 3:52:00 PM 0:25:00 Polites themistocles 4 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANG. HAYpre 3:20:00 PM 3:52:00 PM 0:25:00 unknown grass skipper 3 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANG. HAYpre 3:20:00 PM 3:52:00 PM 0:25:00 Vanessa cardui 2 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Echinacea pallida 1450 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Colias eurytheme 3 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Danaus plexippus 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Epargyreus clarus 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Lycaena dione 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Papilio polyxenes 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Polites origenes 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Polites themistocles 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Speyeria idalia 1 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng 10:41:30 AM 11:41:30 AM 1:00:00 Vanessa virginiensis 13 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Echinacea pallida 1542 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Colias eurytheme 1 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Danaus plexippus 1 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Papilio cresphontes 2 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Polites origenes 7 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Polites themistocles 1 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng 12:45:00 PM 1:19:00 AM 0:34:00 Vanessa virginiensis 6

Duration Date Unit Treatment Start Time Finish Time (h:min:sec) Scientific Name No. of indiv. 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 8:24:00 AM 8:28:00 AM 0:04:00 Monarda fistulosa 241 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 8:24:00 AM 8:28:00 AM 0:04:00 No butterflies 0 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 8:56:00 AM 8:59:00 AM 0:03:00 Monarda fistulosa 130 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 8:56:00 AM 8:59:00 AM 0:03:00 Calycopis cecrops 1 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 9:15:00 AM 9:19:00 AM 0:04:00 Monarda fistulosa 398 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg 9:15:00 AM 9:19:00 AM 0:04:00 No butterflies 0 Pycnanthemum 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre 11:03:30 AM 11:40:00 AM 0:36:30 tenuifolium ~450 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre 11:03:30 AM 11:40:00 AM 0:36:30 No butterflies 0 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre 11:03:30 AM 11:40:00 AM 0:36:30 Asclepias sullivantii ~750 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre 11:03:30 AM 11:40:00 AM 0:36:30 Speyeria idalia 1 Cephalanthus 7/3/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:12:00 PM 1:26:00 PM 0:14:00 occidentalis 175 7/3/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:12:00 PM 1:26:00 PM 0:14:00 Callophrys gryneus 1 Cephalanthus 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 3:30:00 PM 4:03:00 PM 0:33:00 occidentalis 240 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 3:30:00 PM 4:03:00 PM 0:33:00 Atalopedes campestris 1 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 3:30:00 PM 4:03:00 PM 0:33:00 Cercyonis pegala 7 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 3:30:00 PM 4:03:00 PM 0:33:00 Vanessa atalanta 1 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre 12:55:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 0:05:00 Liatris pycnostachya 115 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre 12:55:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 0:05:00 No butterflies 0 Cephalanthus 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:18:00 PM 1:23:00 PM 0:05:00 occidentalis 13 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:18:00 PM 1:23:00 PM 0:05:00 Phyciodes tharos 1 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:23:00 PM 1:38:00 PM 0:15:00 Liatris pycnostachya 100 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY 1:23:00 PM 1:38:00 PM 0:15:00 No butterflies 0

Table 10. Survey information and results from non-random walk butterfly sampling iin the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area during summer 2008. This table includes only data on Species of Greatest Conservation Need.

Start Finish Duration Danaus Speyeria GCN Date Unit Treatment Sun Time Time (h:min:s) plexippus idalia skippers 6/13/2008 HAYTRIANGLE HAYpre full 15:20:00 15:52:00 0:32:00 7/14/2008 HAYTRIANGLE HAYpre full 10:06:00 10:26:00 0:20:00 6/13/2008 Missouri Road FescuePasture full 13:45:00 13:55:00 0:10:00 8 6/13/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre full 18:01:30 18:47:00 0:45:30 2 4 7/3/2008 Sunset_east HAYpre full 11:03:30 11:40:00 0:36:30 1 6/14/2008 Sunset_SW HAYpre full 15:40:00 15:45:00 0:05:00 7/15/2008 WELD01 Abg full 13:56:00 14:03:00 0:07:00 8/6/2008 WELD01 Abg full 16:25:00 16:35:00 0:10:00 1 6/15/2008 WELD02 Bng full 12:45:00 13:04:00 0:19:00 7/14/2008 WELD02 Bng full 14:41:00 15:01:00 0:20:00 6/10/2008 WELD03 Abg full 15:45:00 16:41:00 0:56:00 2 7/3/2008 WELD03 Abg NONE 8:00:00 8:28:00 0:28:00 1 7/15/2008 WELD03 Abg full 11:45:00 12:00:00 0:15:00 6/15/2008 WELD04 Bng full 11:12:30 11:41:00 0:28:30 7/14/2008 WELD04 Bng full 9:42:00 9:50:00 0:08:00 3 8/6/2008 WELD04 Bng filtered 14:42:00 15:05:00 0:23:00 3 8/6/2008 WELD09 HAYpre NONE 12:30:00 12:55:00 0:25:00 6/11/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY full 16:20:00 17:00:00 0:40:00 7/3/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY full 12:49:00 13:12:00 0:23:00 7/13/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY full 16:03:00 16:23:00 0:20:00 8/6/2008 WELD10 BURNHAY NONE 13:00:00 13:18:00 0:18:00 1 7/13/2008 WELD11 BURNHAY full 16:54:00 17:00:00 0:06:00 7/13/2008 WELD12 PARTBURN full 17:54:00 17:56:00 0:02:00 1 6/14/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY full 16:33:00 16:37:00 0:04:00 1 7/13/2008 WELD13 BURNHAY full 17:02:00 17:28:00 0:26:00 2 1 6/14/2008 WELD14 BURN full 17:21:30 17:31:30 0:10:00 7/13/2008 WELD14 BURN full 18:25:00 18:30:00 0:05:00 6/14/2008 WELDNQ Bng full 10:41:30 11:41:30 1:00:00 3 2 6/13/2008 WELDSQ Abg full 12:58:00 13:02:00 0:04:00

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, J. A. and M. S. Boyce. 1998. Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environmental And Ecological Statistics 5:81.

Collier, N., D. A. Mackay, K. Benkendorff, A. D. Austin, and S. M. Carthew. 2006. Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: Estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Austral Ecology 31:282-290.

Dole, J. M., W. B. Gerard, and J. M. Nelson. 2004. Butterflies of Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Texas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.

Ely, C. A., M. D. Schwilling, and M. E. Rolfs. 1986. An annotated list of the butterflies of Kansas. Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas, USA.

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. Bioscience 51:625-632.

Heitzman, J. R. and J. E. Heitzman. 1987. Butterflies and moths of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Moranz, R. A., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. Draft manuscript a. The effects of fire and grazing on regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) populations in Missouri tallgrass prairie.

Moranz, R. A., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and D. M. Engle. Draft manuscript c. Comparing patch- burn grazing with traditional fire-grazing management in Kansas tallgrass prairie: effects on butterfly populations.

NatureServe. 2009. Atrytone arogos in NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www/natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 14, 2009).

Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, R. E. Stanford, M. Pogue, and coordinators. 2006. Butterflies and moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Mountain Prairie Information Node. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Version 01/18/2009)

Powell, A., W. H. Busby, and K. Kindscher. 2007. Status of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) and effects of fire management on its abundance in northeastern Kansas, USA. Journal of Insect Conservation 11:299-308.

Rudolph, D. C., C. A. Ely, R. R. Schaefer, J. H. Williamson, and R. E. Thill. 2006. The Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) and great spangled fritillary (S. cybele):

73 Dependence on fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 60:218-226.

Saarinen, K. and J. Jantunen. 2005. Grassland butterfly fauna under traditional animal husbandry: Contrasts in diversity in mown meadows and grazed pastures. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:3201-3213.

Schultz, C. B. and K. M. Dlugosch. 1999. Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119:231.

Swengel, A. B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biological Conservation 76:73-85.

Swengel, A. B. 1998. Effects of management on butterfly abundance in tallgrass prairie and pine barrens. Biological Conservation 83:77-89.

Swengel, A. B. and S. R. Swengel. 1999. Observations of prairie skippers (Oarisma poweshiek, Hesperia dacotae, H. ottoe, H. leonardus pawnee, and Atrytone arogos Iowa) (Lepidoptera : Hesperiidae) in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota during 1988-1997. Great Lakes Entomologist 32:267.

Wasson, T., L. Yasui, K. Brunson, S. Amend, and V. Ebert. 2005. A future for Kansas wildlife, Kansas' Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Dynamic Solutions, Inc. in cooperation with Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.

APPENDIX II. Butterfly Monitoring Report for 2009

BUTTERFLY MONITORING IN THE ANDERSON COUNTY PRAIRIES CONSERVATION AREA: YEAR 2 (2009)

A report to the Kansas Biological Survey 2101 Constant Avenue Lawrence, KS 66047

By Ray Moranz Moranz Biological Consulting LLC 4514 North Davis Court Stillwater, OK 74075

January 31, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2005, the State of Kansas selected 10 butterfly species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and indicated the need for more field data on these species. In 2009, a second year of butterfly inventories were conducted in the Anderson County Prairies Conservation Area (ACPCA), with a focus on native haymeadows. Two sites in Chase County were also inventoried. Two methods were used to sample the abundance of the entire butterfly fauna: line transects and non-random walks. I observed four SGCN butterfly species: regal fritillary, monarch, arogos skipper, and ottoe skipper. Most haymeadows that were burned in 2009 lacked SGCN species, whereas most unburned haymeadows had SGCN species.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this report is to provide the Kansas Biological Survey and The Nature Conservancy with results from butterfly monitoring that my subcontractor and I performed in Anderson and Chase Counties and during the summer of 2009. Additionally, I interpret those results, and recommend management practices for maintenance and/or enhancement of populations of butterfly Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Anderson and Chase Counties.

METHODS

Study Sites

In 2008, I intensively sampled every unit of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve except Unit 8, and also sampled the eastern portion of Sunset Prairie. Most sampling was performed in mid-June and mid-July. In 2009, my subcontractor (Bryan Reynolds of Lexington, OK) and I sampled Anderson County sites (Table 1) between June 15th and June 19th. We intensively sampled Units 1, 3, 5, and 9 of the ACPP, but cursorily sampled Units 2, 4, North Quarter and South Quarter. Outside of the ACPP, we intensively sampled multiple haymeadows in Anderson County. I intensively sampled Chase State Fishing Lake and Elmdale Haymeadow (both in Chase County) on June 27th (Table 1).

Sampling Methods

In 2009, my primary sampling methodology was the non-random walk survey. These surveys consisted of recording butterfly observations while walking in a non-

77 random fashion, without recording the precise waypoints of the walk. Though clearly less repeatable and more biased than line transect surveys, they were a means to maximize the dividends of time spent doing field work. During non-random walk surveys, I walked at a pace of approximately 2 km/hour. Though I know the lengths of only a few of these surveys, I did record the amount of time spent on each one. I also performed some line transect surveys. Line transect routes were straight, and were placed randomly within each unit, except all portions of each transect route were at least 50 m from unit boundaries (to avoid edge effects) and 50 m from the nearest transect route (to minimize repeat sightings). Transects ranged in length from 100 m to 300 m. Most sampling was performed during weather conditions appropriate for butterfly flight (temperature > 20 ºC, cloud cover < 70%, wind < 20 km/hr), but some sampling was performed under heavy cloud cover as long as temperatures surpassed 20 ºC and there was no precipitation. During sampling, I walked each transect at a speed of 1.2 km/hr and recorded data on butterflies seen within the 180º field of view spanning from the observer’s left to the observer’s right. Data were collected in 100 m transect segments, allowing for future calculation of the species richness of each segment. Each butterfly was identified to the species level if possible and its behavior when first detected was recorded. If a butterfly was nectaring, I recorded the plant species upon which it nectared. This permitted me to later determine which nectar sources were used most frequently during each sampling session. Different amounts of sampling effort were expended at each site. To standardize abundance data, I calculated the number seen per hour spent sampling. I performed t- tests to test for treatment effects on abundance of arogos skippers and regal fritillaries.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Brief Review of 2008 Findings

In 2008, I observed 46 butterfly species in the ACPCA, but only two SGCN butterflies: regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) and monarch (Danaus plexippus). Regal fritillaries were few in number except at Sunset Prairie hay meadow. The scarcity of regal fritillaries and the failure to observe any SGCN skippers were likely due to excessive prescribed burning; annual haying may also have contributed to declines. Overview of 2009 Data In 2009, I observed 35 different butterfly species in the ACPCA and Chase County. Of these, four were SGCN butterflies: regal fritillary, monarch, arogos skipper (Atrytone arogos), and ottoe skipper (Hesperia ottoe). Table 2 lists the species observed at each site, whereas Table 3 lists the sites at which each species was observed. I observed regal fritillaries at 13 locations. Monarchs, the least imperiled of the SGCN butterflies, were observed at 15 sites. Arogos skippers were observed at five sites, almost always nectaring on Echinacea pallida or E. angustifolia. I observed two ottoe skippers at Chase State Fishing Lake on June 27, 2009.

Effects of Prairie Management on SGCN Species

Regal Fritillary Regal fritillaries were observed at 13 locations in 2009. My data clearly show negative effects of recent burning of entire prairies. Regal fritillaries were observed at 10 of 11 unburned haymeadows (Table 4). In contrast, they were seen at only 2 of 9 recently burned haymeadows; one of these (Polygala Prairie) was only partly burned, whereas I am not certain that the other (Big Lake Prairie) was burned at all. A t-test showed that regal fritillaries were significantly more abundant in unburned haymeadows than recently burned haymeadows (t = 8.06, p = 0.011); this result is very similar to that obtained by KBS staff in the Kansas City area (Powell et al. 2007) At Chase Lake Fishing Lake (an ungrazed, unhayed prairie), burning once again had negative effects on regal fritillaries: I saw none in 2 hours spent in the recently burned prairie there, but saw 15 in the first 10 minutes spent in the unburned prairie. As in 2008, I observed few regal fritillaries at the Anderson County Prairie Preserve. However, I spent much less time sampling this prairie in 2009.

Monarch Monarchs were observed at 15 sites in 2009. The monarch is a habitat generalist (Vogel et al 2008), and their abundance seemed to be affected little by management treatments.

Arogos Skipper Arogos skippers were observed at five sites in 2009: Welda Prairie Units 3 and 9, I Feel Good Prairie, Garrison Prairie, and Chase State Fishing Lake. Some of the existing literature on this species indicates negative effects of burning on this species (Swengel 1996, Swengel 1998). I found mixed effects of fire. The largest number (7) of arogos skippers were observed in recently burned, ungrazed, unhayed prairie on the east side of Chase State Fishing Lake. We saw none in the unburned, ungrazed, unhayed prairie on the west and north sides of that public land. However, in haymeadows, recent burning appears to harm this species. In 20+ hours spent sampling in burned haymeadows during 2008 and 2009, we observed no arogos skippers. In contrast, we observed arogos skippers at 3 of 11 unburned haymeadows in 2009. Finally, it is noteworthy that I found arogos skippers at two units of the Anderson County Prairie Preserve in 2009, whereas I observed none there in 2008 despite much more sampling effort there in 2008. I suspect that the reduced amount of burning in 2009 (relative to 2008) is the primary reason for this. The literature has recommended haying as a superior practicing to burning. My data do little to support or negate that recommendation. On the other hand, my observations point to negative effects of intense grazing on arogos skipper habitat. Four of the seven arogos skippers I observed at Chase State Fishing Lake were nectaring on Echinacea angustifolia, which was blooming abundantly in the burned, ungrazed prairie (as was Asclepias tuberosa, a wonderful nectar source for the regal fritillary). Across the

79 barbed wire fence, in recently burned and grazed tallgrass prairie, I observed no flowering ramets of either nectar source.

Ottoe Skipper I observed two ottoe skippers in 2009. Both were in recently burned prairie located on a hilltop on the east side of Chase State Fishing Lake. This hilltop had hundreds of flowering ramets of Echinacea angustifolia; both ottoe skippers were observed nectaring on this species. These are the only ottoe skippers I’ve observed in ~300 hours of sampling butterfly populations in Kansas prairies from 2007 to 2009.

Effects of Prairie Management on NON-SGCN Butterfly Species

Many non-SGCN butterfly species were observed in a variety of management regimes, and did not differ significantly in abundance among these regimes. However, black swallowtails (Papilio polyxenes) and tawny-edged skippers (Polites themistocles) were significantly more abundant in unburned haymeadows than in burned haymeadows. The following species shared this difference in abundance among regimes, but not significantly: Delaware skipper (Anatrytone logan), gray copper (Lycaena dione), pearl crescent (Phyciodes tharos), and variegated fritillary (Euptoieta claudia). Clouded sulphurs (Colias philodice) were significantly more abundant in burned haymeadows than unburned haymeadows.

Management Recommendations for Kansas Butterfly SGCN in Anderson and Chase Counties

1) Focus on maintaining and/or increasing populations of key nectar sources

My research in Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa points to the importance of key nectar sources to SGCN butterfly species. Echinacea spp. are the most important to arogos skipper (and probably to other SGCN skippers), and are also frequently used by regal fritillaries, monarchs, and most other prairie butterflies. Asclepias tuberosa is another species frequently used by regal fritillaries, but seems to be much less desirable to SGCN skippers.

2) Reduce the extent of prescribed fires, and reduce the fire return interval at any given spot on the landscape.

Though the KBS should continue to use prescribed fires in winter/spring to manage Anderson County Prairie Preserve (ACPP) sites for the benefit of multiple tallgrass prairie species, I recommend that KBS reduce the extent of these fires so as to incinerate fewer eggs, larvae, and pupae of full-year resident butterfly species, which includes all of the Kansas SGCN butterflies except for Danaus plexippus. I recommend

80 that no more than 1/3 of a contiguous grassland be burned each year, and burning entire grasslands should be avoided. From research conducted in Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep.), burning 1/3 of a prairie each year appears to be compatible with maintenance of S. idalia populations, at least for the duration of our study period. The effects of rotational burning on imperiled grassland skippers are still unclear, but it certainly appears to be more favorable to these species than burning entire pastures, which often extirpates populations.

3) In cattle pastures, conduct patch-burn grazing.

Although rotational fire alone (patch-burning, no grazing) appears to be superior to patch-burn grazing for maintaining large populations of S. idalia in southwestern Missouri (Moranz et al. in prep.), patch-burn grazing pastures harbored this species at much higher densities than found at all ACPCA sites except for Sunset Prairie. A growing body of research indicates that the fire-grazing interaction was a dominant ecological process on the Great Plains, and perhaps also in the prairie peninsula region (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001, Fuhlendorf et al. 2009). Therefore, Kansas’ SGCN butterflies almost certainly evolved with this interaction as a major selective force, and are believed to be adapted to patch-burn grazing. At the North Quarter pasture, patch-burn grazing would benefit resident butterfly populations, but also has great potential to increase plant species diversity in the northern 1/3rd that has such high cover of Panicum virgatum. If only that third of the North Quarter is burned, and if cattle are in the pasture no more than 10 days after the burn, there is an excellent chance that they will focus their grazing efforts on this patch for much of the spring and summer. This would be likely to reduce the competitive edge of Panicum virgatum over other plants, allowing species diversity to increase. IMPORTANT: to get these effects, it is essential to have the cattle in the pasture within a few days after the post-burn regrowth begins, and it is also essential to have the stocking density high enough for the cattle to ―keep up‖ with the regrowth.

4) Keep stocking rates low

Cattle are known to consume many of the nectar sources upon which butterflies depend, including Echinacea spp. which are so important to SGCN skippers. Cattle stocking rates should be kept low so as to leave substantial numbers of flowering ramets of these nectar sources.

5) Keep some haymeadows free from fire for 4+ years

6) Implement patch-haying in some of the hay meadows

The effects of haying on SGCN skippers in Kansas remain unclear. I observed arogos skippers at only 3 of 11 unburned haymeadows in 2009. Given that arogos, ottoe, and byssus skippers lay their eggs in June, July haying appears likely to be quite destructive to immatures of these species, while also temporarily eliminating nectar

81 sources for the adults. Just as with patch-burning, patch-haying should involve disturbing a part of a hay meadow each year, and rotating the disturbance from one patch to another each year.

7) Provide local landowners and land managers with extension literature that explains best management practices for maintaining biodiversity in tallgrass prairie pastures and hay meadows

8) Special attention should be devoted to prairie management at Chase State Fishing Lake

Chase State Fishing Lake appears to host a diverse array of SGCN butterfly species. It also has one of the largest tracts of ungrazed, unhayed tallgrass prairie in Kansas, increasing its importance to the long-term survival of SGCN butterflies in the Flint Hills.

LITERATURE CITED

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns. Bioscience 51:625-632.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., D. M. Engle, J. Kerby, and R. Hamilton. 2009. Pyric herbivory: rewilding landscapes through the recoupling of fire and grazing. Conservation Biology 23:588-598.

Swengel, A. B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biological Conservation 76:73-85.

Swengel, A. B. 1998. Effects of fire and hay management on butterflies. Rx Fire Notes 7:10-13.

Table 1. Butterfly sampling sites and their management treatments in 2009.

KBS UNIT # KBS Unit Name Treatment Burned in 2009? Comments 1300 Road and Prairie Spirit None Trail fallow no 1600 and Kiowa (on west 300 side) haymeadow YES 1600 Rd, 0.5 miles E of None Texas Street haymeadow no 356 Appetizer Prairie haymeadow NO As Native as You Can Get 327 Prairie haymeadow partially Beautiful After the Rain 387 Prairie haymeadow YES 381 Big Lake Prairie haymeadow unknown None Chase State Fishing Lake ungrazed prairie YES Elmdale Hay Meadow, None Chase County* haymeadow no Owner uses herbicide 318 Finally Here Prairie grazed no often 3371 Garnett Prairie haymeadow probably not 2611 Garrison Prairie haymeadow probably not 270 Hyacinth Haven North haymeadow YES 379 I Feel Good Prairie haymeadow no 362 Meadowlark Tree Prairie haymeadow no 390 Mont Ida Prairie haymeadow YES 336 Polygala Prairie haymeadow YES, most of it patchy burn 199 Railroad Triangle Prairie haymeadow no 2351 Sunset Prairie haymeadow no 319 Timmy's Prairie haymeadow no 348 Train Tracks Triangle haymeadow YES None Welda Prairie North Quarter grazed YES None Welda Prairie South Quarter grazed YES patch-burn None Welda Prairie Unit 01 grazed YES patch-burn None Welda Prairie Unit 03 grazed no patch-burn None Welda Prairie Unit 04 grazed less than 40% None Welda Prairie Unit 05 haymeadow YES None Welda Prairie Unit 09 haymeadow no 427 Wildcat Prairie haymeadow YES

* = NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec 34, Township 19 South, Range 7 East

Table 2. Butterflies observed at sites in Anderson and Chase Counties in June 2009. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are indicated with an asterisk.

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

199 Railroad Triangle Prairie black swallowtail 5 Delaware skipper 3 dun skipper 3 eastern tailed blue 12 gray copper 1 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 6 orange sulphur 16 pearl crescent 5 regal fritillary* 37 tawny-edged skipper 12 unknown grass skipper 4

270 Hyacinth Haven North Unit eastern tailed blue 2 orange sulphur 2

271 Hyacinth Haven South Unit orange sulphur 2

1600 and Kiowa 300 none clouded sulphur 11 (on west side) Delaware skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 20 hackberry emperor 3 monarch 3 orange sulphur 27 pearl crescent 1 tawny-edged skipper 1 unknown grass skipper 1

318 Finally Here Prairie monarch 2 orange sulphur 3 regal fritillary 1

319 Timmy's Prairie american lady 3 black swallowtail 8 crossline skipper 1 Delaware skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 1 eastern tiger swallowtail 1 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 3 orange sulphur 7 pearl crescent 6 regal fritillary* 18 tawny-edged skipper 14 zebra swallowtail 2

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

Yearling and As Native As You Can Get 327 1200 Rd (Coffey NONE 1 Prairie County Line)

336 Polygala Prairie black swallowtail 1 clouded sulphur 1 orange sulphur 4 regal fritillary* 2 tawny-edged skipper 4 variegated fritillary 2

(Idaho Rd and 348 Train Tracks Triangle 1300 @ Train clouded sulphur 1 Track Triangle)

356 Appetizer Prairie black swallowtail 3 gray copper 6 orange sulphur 2 regal fritillary* 20 tawny-edged skipper 6 variegated fritillary 1

just east of Utah 362 Meadowlark Tree Prairie Road and CRWD black swallowtail 2 Watertower #1 cabbage white 1 clouded sulphur 1 crossline skipper 2 Delaware skipper 2 eastern tailed blue 2 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 1 orange sulphur 3 pearl crescent 4 regal fritillary* 20 tawny-edged skipper 13 Vanessa sp. 1 variegated fritillary 1

379 I Feel Good Prairie north half arogos skipper* 1 black swallowtail 3 dun skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 1 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 1 orange sulphur 1 regal fritillary* 3 tawny-edged skipper 18 variegated fritillary 1

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

379 I Feel Good Prairie south half arogos skipper* 1 black swallowtail 9 crossline skipper 3 Delaware skipper 2 eastern tailed blue 6 giant swallowtail 1 monarch 1 orange sulphur 10 pearl crescent 1 regal fritillary* 5 tawny-edged skipper 10 variegated fritillary 2

381 Big Lake Prairie black swallowtail 1 clouded sulphur 1 Delaware skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 1 gray copper 2 gray hairstreak 1 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 1 orange sulphur 3 painted lady 1 regal fritillary* 2 tawny-edged skipper 3 variegated fritillary 1

Beautiful After the Rain 387 black swallowtail 2 Prairie common buckeye 1 Delaware skipper 1 great spangled fritillary 9 monarch 1 orange sulphur 3 pearl crescent 1 silvery checkerspot 1 unknown grass skipper 1

390 Mont Ida Prairie clouded sulphur 3 orange sulphur 3

427 Wildcat Prairie clouded sulphur 1 crossline skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 7 great spangled fritillary 1 northern broken-dash 1 orange sulphur 7 pearl crescent 1 tawny-edged skipper 1

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

2351 Sunset Prairie monarch 1 monarch 2 regal fritillary* 3 tawny-edged skipper 2

north 1/4 section 2611 Garrison Prairie on Utah, just N of american lady 5 1150 arogos skipper* 1 black swallowtail 3 checkered skipper 1 common buckeye 5 crossline skipper 1 Delaware skipper 6 dun skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 4 gray copper 1 great spangled fritillary 5 monarch 1 orange sulphur 3 pearl crescent 2 regal fritillary* 2 tawny-edged skipper 3 unknown duskywing 1 unknown lady 1 unknown spreadwing 1 variegated fritillary 2

South 1/4 section 2611 Garrison Prairie on Utah, just N of unknown grass skipper 2 1150

southeast corner 3371 Garnett Prairie of 1400 Rd and american lady 2 US 59 black swallowtail 5 clouded sulphur 1 eastern tailed blue 2 gray copper 1 orange sulphur 4 variegated fritillary 1

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

1300 and Rail Trail, going none none american lady 1 NORTH from 1300 black swallowtail 1 Delaware skipper 1 dun skipper 1 great spangled fritillary 1 monarch 1 orange sulphur 4 painted lady 1 red admiral 1 orange sulphur 3 pearl crescent 1

1600 Road, 0.5 None none miles E of Texas regal fritillary* 9 Street tawny-edged skipper 4

None Chase State Fishing Lake Chase County american lady 3 arogos skipper* 7 black swallowtail 2 clouded sulphur 2 common buckeye 1 coral hairstreak 1 Delaware skipper 4 gray copper 1 gray hairstreak 1 monarch 15 orange sulphur 10 ottoe skipper* 2 pearl crescent 14 reakirt's blue 7 regal fritillary* 40 sachem 5 silver-spotted skipper 2 tawny-edged skipper 2 unknown duskywing 1 variegated fritillary 33

NE1/4 NW1/4 Sec Elmdale Hay Meadow, 34, Township 19 None eastern tailed blue 6 Chase County South, Range 7 East orange sulphur 10 regal fritillary* 4 sachem 1 variegated fritillary 1

KBS Additional Site KBS Unit Name Common Name Count UNIT # Info

None Welda Prairie South 1/4 american lady 1 monarch 2 pearl crescent 1

None Welda Prairie Unit 01 american lady 2 black swallowtail 3 coral hairstreak 1 dun skipper 1 eastern tailed blue 2 monarch 2 orange sulphur 7 pearl crescent 3 regal fritillary* 1 tawny-edged skipper 1 unknown spreadwing 1

None Welda Prairie Unit 02 NONE

None Welda Prairie Unit 03 arogos skipper* 3 crossline skipper 2 Delaware skipper 3 eastern tailed blue 2 orange sulphur 2 pearl crescent 1 tawny-edged skipper 4 zebra swallowtail 5

None Welda Prairie Unit 04 american lady 1

None Welda Prairie Unit 05 american lady 1 monarch 1 tawny-edged skipper 2

None Welda Prairie Unit 09 arogos skipper* 2 black swallowtail 1 coral hairstreak 1 eastern tailed blue 3 monarch 1 orange sulphur 5 pearl crescent 1 regal fritillary* 1 tawny-edged skipper 3 variegated fritillary 1

Table 3. Butterfly observations made in June 2009 in Anderson and Chase Counties, Kansas.

KBS UNIT Number of Common Name Scientific Name KBS Unit Name Number individuals Treatment american lady Vanessa virginiensis Welda Prairie South Quarter 1 BURNED & GRAZED american lady Vanessa virginiensis Welda Prairie Unit 05 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW american lady Vanessa virginiensis 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow american lady Vanessa virginiensis Chase State Fishing Lake 3 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) american lady Vanessa virginiensis Welda Prairie Unit 01 2 PBG burned this year american lady Vanessa virginiensis Welda Prairie Unit 04 1 PBG burned this year american lady Vanessa virginiensis Garnett Prairie 3371 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW american lady Vanessa virginiensis Garrison Prairie 2611 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW american lady Vanessa virginiensis Timmy's Prairie 319 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW arogos skipper Atrytone arogos Chase State Fishing Lake 7 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) arogos skipper Atrytone arogos Welda Prairie Unit 03 3 PBG not burned this year arogos skipper Atrytone arogos Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW arogos skipper Atrytone arogos I Feel Good Prairie 379 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW arogos skipper Atrytone arogos Welda Prairie Unit 09 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Beautiful After the Rain black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Prairie 387 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Polygala Prairie 336 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Chase State Fishing Lake 2 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Welda Prairie Unit 01 3 PBG burned this year black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Appetizer Prairie 356 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Garnett Prairie 3371 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Garrison Prairie 2611 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes I Feel Good Prairie 379 12 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Timmy's Prairie 319 8 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW cabbage white Pieris rapae Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW checkered skipper Pyrgus communis Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW

91 clouded sulphur Colias philodice Mont Ida Prairie 390 3 BURNED HAY MEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Polygala Prairie 336 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Train Tracks Triangle 348 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Chase State Fishing Lake 2 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) clouded sulphur Colias philodice Garnett Prairie 3371 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW clouded sulphur Colias philodice Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Beautiful After the Rain common buckeye Junonia coenia Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW common buckeye Junonia coenia Chase State Fishing Lake 1 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) common buckeye Junonia coenia Garrison Prairie 2611 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW coral hairstreak Satyrium titus Chase State Fishing Lake 1 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) coral hairstreak Satyrium titus Welda Prairie Unit 01 1 PBG burned this year coral hairstreak Satyrium titus Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW crossline skipper Polites origenes Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW crossline skipper Polites origenes Welda Prairie Unit 03 2 PBG not burned this year crossline skipper Polites origenes Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW crossline skipper Polites origenes I Feel Good Prairie 379 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW crossline skipper Polites origenes Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW crossline skipper Polites origenes Timmy's Prairie 319 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Beautiful After the Rain Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Chase State Fishing Lake 4 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Welda Prairie Unit 03 3 PBG not burned this year Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Garrison Prairie 2611 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan I Feel Good Prairie 379 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan Timmy's Prairie 319 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW dun skipper Euphyes vestris 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow dun skipper Euphyes vestris Welda Prairie Unit 01 1 PBG burned this year dun skipper Euphyes vestris Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW dun skipper Euphyes vestris I Feel Good Prairie 379 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW dun skipper Euphyes vestris Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW

92 eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Hyacinth Haven North 270 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Wildcat Praire 427 7 BURNED HAY MEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Welda Prairie Unit 01 2 PBG burned this year eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Welda Prairie Unit 03 2 PBG not burned this year eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Elmdale Hay Meadow, Chase County 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Garnett Prairie 3371 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Garrison Prairie 2611 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas I Feel Good Prairie 379 7 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 12 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Timmy's Prairie 319 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas Welda Prairie Unit 09 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio glaucus Timmy's Prairie 319 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW giant swallowtail Papilio cresphontes I Feel Good Prairie 379 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW gray copper Lycaena dione Big Lake Prairie 381 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW gray copper Lycaena dione Chase State Fishing Lake 1 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) gray copper Lycaena dione Appetizer Prairie 356 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW gray copper Lycaena dione Garnett Prairie 3371 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW gray copper Lycaena dione Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW gray copper Lycaena dione Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW gray hairstreak Strymon melinus Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW gray hairstreak Strymon melinus Chase State Fishing Lake 1 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) great spangled Beautiful After the Rain fritillary Speyeria cybele Prairie 387 9 BURNED HAY MEADOW great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Garrison Prairie 2611 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele I Feel Good Prairie 379 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW great spangled Speyeria cybele Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW 93 fritillary great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele Timmy's Prairie 319 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Welda Prairie South Quarter 2 BURNED & GRAZED Beautiful After the Rain monarch Danaus plexippus Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Welda Prairie Unit 05 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow monarch Danaus plexippus Finally Here Prairie 318 2 GRAZED NOT BURNED; herbicided monarch Danaus plexippus Chase State Fishing Lake 15 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) monarch Danaus plexippus Welda Prairie Unit 01 2 PBG burned this year monarch Danaus plexippus Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus I Feel Good Prairie 379 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Sunset Prairie 2351 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Timmy's Prairie 319 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW monarch Danaus plexippus Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Wallengrenia northern broken-dash egeremet Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW Beautiful After the Rain orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Prairie 387 3 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Big Lake Prairie 381 3 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Hyacinth Haven North 270 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Mont Ida Prairie 390 3 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Polygala Prairie 336 4 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Wildcat Praire 427 7 BURNED HAY MEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 7 fallow orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Finally Here Prairie 318 3 GRAZED NOT BURNED; herbicided orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Hyacinth Haven South 271 2 Haymeadow; fire history unknown orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Chase State Fishing Lake 10 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Welda Prairie Unit 01 7 PBG burned this year orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Welda Prairie Unit 03 2 PBG not burned this year

94 orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Appetizer Prairie 356 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Elmdale Hay Meadow, Chase County 10 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Garnett Prairie 3371 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Garrison Prairie 2611 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme I Feel Good Prairie 379 11 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 16 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Timmy's Prairie 319 7 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW orange sulphur Colias eurytheme Welda Prairie Unit 09 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe Chase State Fishing Lake 2 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) painted lady Vanessa cardui Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW painted lady Vanessa cardui 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Welda Prairie South Quarter 1 BURNED & GRAZED Beautiful After the Rain pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Chase State Fishing Lake 14 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Welda Prairie Unit 01 3 PBG burned this year pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Welda Prairie Unit 03 1 PBG not burned this year pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Garrison Prairie 2611 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos I Feel Good Prairie 379 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 5 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Timmy's Prairie 319 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW reakirt's blue Echinargus isola Chase State Fishing Lake 7 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) red admiral Vanessa atalanta 1300 and Prairie Spirit Trail 1 fallow regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Big Lake Prairie 381 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Polygala Prairie 336 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Finally Here Prairie 318 1 GRAZED NOT BURNED; herbicided regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Chase State Fishing Lake 40 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Welda Prairie Unit 01 1 PBG burned this year regal fritillary Speyeria idalia 1600 Road, 0.5 miles E of Texas Street 9 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Appetizer Prairie 356 20 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Elmdale Hay Meadow, Chase County 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW

95 regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Garrison Prairie 2611 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia I Feel Good Prairie 379 8 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 20 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 37 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Sunset Prairie 2351 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Timmy's Prairie 319 18 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW Atalopedes sachem campestris Chase State Fishing Lake 5 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) Atalopedes sachem campestris Elmdale Hay Meadow, Chase County 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus Chase State Fishing Lake 2 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) Beautiful After the Rain silvery checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Big Lake Prairie 381 3 BURNED HAY MEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Polygala Prairie 336 4 BURNED HAY MEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Welda Prairie Unit 05 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Wildcat Praire 427 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Chase State Fishing Lake 2 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Welda Prairie Unit 01 1 PBG burned this year tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Welda Prairie Unit 03 4 PBG not burned this year tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles 1600 Road, 0.5 miles E of Texas Street 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Appetizer Prairie 356 6 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Garrison Prairie 2611 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles I Feel Good Prairie 379 28 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 13 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 12 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Sunset Prairie 2351 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Timmy's Prairie 319 14 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles Welda Prairie Unit 09 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW unknown duskywing Erynnis sp. Chase State Fishing Lake 1 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) unknown duskywing Erynnis sp. Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW unknown grass unknown grass Beautiful After the Rain skipper skipper Prairie 387 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW unknown grass unknown grass skipper skipper Garrison Prairie 2611 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW

96 unknown grass unknown grass skipper skipper Railroad Triangle Prairie 199 4 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW unknown lady Vanessa sp. Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW unknown lady Vanessa sp. Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW unknown spreadwing unknown spreadwing Welda Prairie Unit 01 1 PBG burned this year unknown spreadwing unknown spreadwing Garrison Prairie 2611 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Big Lake Prairie 381 1 BURNED HAY MEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Polygala Prairie 336 2 BURNED HAY MEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Chase State Fishing Lake 33 PB NG (Partially burned; no grazing) variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Appetizer Prairie 356 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Elmdale Hay Meadow, Chase County 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Garnett Prairie 3371 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Garrison Prairie 2611 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia I Feel Good Prairie 379 3 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Meadowlark Tree Prairie 362 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia Welda Prairie Unit 09 1 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW zebra swallowtail Eurytides marcellus Timmy's Prairie 319 2 UNBURNED HAYMEADOW

Table 4. Butterfly abundance (in number of individuals observed per hour) in June 2009 compared among units managed via different treatments. BURNED HAY MEADOW = burned in 2009, hayed in most prior years; BURNED & GRAZED = Burned and grazed in 2008 and 2009; UNBURNED HAY MEADOW= unburned in 2009, hayed in most prior years; PBG burned this year = patch-burn grazed, this patch burned spring 2009; PBG not burn = patch-burn grazed, this patch NOT burned in 2009; PB NG = partially burned in 2009 with no grazing or haying in recent years. MANAGEMENT REGIMES BURNED BURNED UNBURNED PBG PBG PB HAY MEADOW & GRAZED HAY burned this not NG (n = 9) (n=2) MEADOW year (n=2) burn (n=1) (n=11) (n=1) Common Name Scientific Name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. american lady Vanessa virginiensis 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.9 arogos skipper Atrytone arogos 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.1 black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes 0.4 0.2 2.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 cabbage white Pieris rapae 0.1 0.1 checkered skipper Pyrgus communis clouded sulphur Colias philodice 3.2 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 common buckeye Junonia coenia 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 coral hairstreak Satyrium titus 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 crossline skipper Polites origenes 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 Delaware skipper Anatrytone logan 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.2 dun skipper Euphyes vestris 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 eastern tailed blue Cupido comyntas 3.7 2.8 2.1 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 eastern tiger swallowtail Papilio glaucus 0.1 0.1 giant swallowtail Papilio cresphontes 0.1 0.1 gray copper Lycaena dione 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.3 gray hairstreak Strymon melinus 0.1 0.1 0.3 great spangled fritillary Speyeria cybele 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 hackberry emperor Asterocampa celtis 0.4 0.4 monarch Danaus plexippus 0.8 0.4 2.0 2.0 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 4.5 northern broken-dash Wallengrenia egeremet 0.1 0.1 orange sulphur Colias eurytheme 6.6 3.7 3.8 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.4 3 ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe 0.6 painted lady Vanessa cardui 0.1 0.1 pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.2 4.2 reakirt's blue Echinargus isola 2.1 red admiral Vanessa atalanta regal fritillary Speyeria idalia 0.4 0.3 7.9 2.4 0.2 0.2 12

MANAGEMENT REGIMES BURNED BURNED HAY PBG burned PBG PB HAY MEADOW & GRAZED MEADOW this year no NG (n = 9) (n=2) (n=11) (n=2) burn (n=1) (n=1) Common Name Scientific name Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. Mean S.E. sachem Atalopedes campestris 0.1 0.1 1.5 silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus 0.6 silvery checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis 0.1 0.1 tawny-edged skipper Polites themistocles 1.3 0.6 5.1 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 unknown duskywing Erynnis sp. 0.3 unknown grass skipper unknown grass skipper 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 unknown lady Vanessa sp. 0.1 0.1 unknown spreadwing unknown spreadwing 0.2 0.2 variegated fritillary Euptoieta claudia 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 9.9 zebra swallowtail Eurytides marcellus 0.1 0.1 1.0