VIEWS: 66 PAGES: 87 POSTED ON: 10/16/2011
An Adaptive Approach to Restoring Culturally-Important Plants at Grand Portage National Monument NPS Photos Final report submitted: March 2011 2 By Joy B. Zedler and James M. Doherty, with Botany 670 Students Contributions as follows: Joy Zedler was the principal investigator on the project, taught Botany 670 (Adaptive Restoration Lab), wrote the bulk of Part 3, and compiled/edited the entire report. James Doherty (UW-Madison) sampled vegetation in the Grand Portage National Monument (GRPO) meadow in 2009, mapped elevation and species distributions, wrote Part 2 and the management experiments (Part 3, Phase 4), and revised significant portions of the document based on input from Brandon Seitz (of GRPO). Deb Pomroy (UM-Duluth) contributed a plant species list at the restoration site in summer 2009. Jenn Ipsen (UW undergraduate) propagated sweetgrass under varied water and nutrient treatments at UW, where Dr. Mo Fayyaz and his staff provided space and sweetgrass care in the Botany greenhouse. The Fall 2009 Adaptive Restoration Lab students devised several experiments that were revised and incorporated into this report. Contributors were Kayla Arendt, Michael Chang, Jason Janzen, Karen Cardinal, Jason Londo, Blaine Wesley, Hadley Boehm, Kristin Millies, Kyle Magyera, and Nick St. Martin. The Fall 2008 Adaptive Restoration class contributed literature reviews for the ―Species Profiles‖ document that accompanies this restoration plan, and Fall 2009 students updated their reviews. Contributors in 2008 were: Erik Olson, Carol Warden, Matt Simon, Stephanie Judge, Sarah Ruth, Angelique Edgerton, Alissa Santurri, James Doherty, Julie Pignotti, and Laurel Wilson. Updates in 2009 were contributed by: Kayla Arendt, Michael Chang, Jason Janzen, Karen Cardinal, Jason Londo, Blaine Wesley, Hadley Boehm, Kristin Millies, Kyle Magyera, and Nick St. Martin, with additional references from the MS thesis of Michael Healy. University of Wisconsin-Madison Botany Department 430 Lincoln Drive Madison, WI 53706 2011 This report was prepared under the Great Lakes Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit Task Agreement J6150090004, Cooperative Agreement CAH6000082000, between the National Park Service and the University of Minnesota. 3 Preface Students in Botany 670 developed understanding of culturally-important plants and restoration ecology while contributing to this report. Three components provided a model ―service-learning‖ opportunity: (1) Literature reviews of the target restoration species, namely, caraway, chives, sunchokes, sweetgrass, reed canary grass, smooth brome, Greene‘s rush and Vasey‘s rush (Part 1, ―Species profiles‖), (2) Proposed experimental restoration of desired species, and (3) Plans for the removal of weedy invasive species. The restoration planning process benefited students of the University of Wisconsin (UW) Botany 670 (Adaptive Restoration Lab, 2 Credits) in Fall of both 2008 and 2009. Brandon Seitz supplied a single block (about 1 square foot) of sweetgrass sod from the GRPO meadow, which led to additional undergraduate research. Of the 15 undamaged seeds contained on sweetgrass inflorescences in that sod block, 6 germinated and produced clones with six unique genotypes. Jen Ipsen (Directed Study, 2 Credits) propagated the six genotypes of sweetgrass in the UW Botany greenhouse and tested growth responses to water levels and nutrients. In the process, she expanded the plants to over 50 pots of sweetgrass (photo below; report provided to Seitz in May 2010). The pots of sweetgrass were donated to GRPO in November 2010 for further propagation and use in restoring the meadow. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (headings hyperlinked to their location in the report) Part 1. Species Profiles Four culturally-important plants Sweetgrass Sunchokes Chives Caraway Two native plant species that might assist sweetgrass restoration Greene’s rush Vasey’s rush Two invasive species that need to be controlled Smooth brome Reed canary grass Part 2. Meadow Vegetation Survey Introduction Methods Results Discussion Part 3. Adaptive restoration and management plans Phase 1: Garden experiments Phase 2: Meadow-edge experiments Phase 3: Adaptive restoration within the meadow Phase 4: Adaptive management within the meadow Summary of experiments by phase and priority Discussion and Recommendations Landscape restoration Summary of recommendations Highlighting ecological functions Original project scope of work 5 Part 1. Species Profiles Culturally important plants that could be restored at the Grand Portage meadow. Compiled by students of Botany 670 Adaptive Restoration Lab Edited by Joy B. Zedler, Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin – Madison This report was prepared under the Great Lakes Northern Forest Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit Task Agreement J6150090004, Cooperative Agreement CAH6000082000, between the National Park Service and the University of Minnesota. 6 SWEETGRASS SCIENTIFIC NAME: Hierochloe hirta (Schrank) Borbás Hierochloe comes from ieros for "sacred" and chloe for grass TAXONOMIC NOTES: We are confident that GRPO sweetgrass is Hierochloe hirta not Hierochloe odorata (L.) P. Beauv. The former taxa has been recorded present in and around Cook County MN, whereas the latter has not and is circumboreal in distribution (USDA). However, Hierochloe hirta has often been referred to as Hierochloe odorata and still is, in some taxonomic references (as noted by the Freckmann Herbarium). Some of the literature cited in this report refers ambiguously to ―Hierochloe odorata‖ or ―sweetgrass‖. In such cases, we cannot resolve which species was intended, so we caution that experiments and accounts of ―Hierochloe odorata‖ or ―sweetgrass‖ may or may not pertain to the ecology of the related species, Hierochloe hirta, found at GRPO. We are uncertain if GRPO sweetgrass is Hierochloe hirta subsp. hirta (Schrank) Borbás or Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica (J.Presl) G.Weim. The Freckmann Herbarium website recognizes only Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica in the state of Wisconsin, suggesting that may be the predominant subspecies near GRPO. Still, out of precaution, in this report we simply refer to the species, Hierochloe hirta. Finally, although Hierochloe hirta is an accepted nomenclatural synonym, the preferred scientific name for the species is now Anthoxanthum hirtum (Schrank) Y. Schouten & Veldkamp (ITIS 2010). We used Hierochloe hirta here because the genus is better-known. Likewise, while the accepted common name is northern sweetgrass, common names for sweetgrass are redundant or ambiguous and reflect common usage, rather than taxonomic singularity. In this document, we refer to Hierochloe hirta as ―sweetgrass‖ rather than ―northern sweetgrass‖ to indicate the species present at GRPO meadow in a way that is familiar and recognizable. COMMON NAMES: northern sweetgrass, sweetgrass, vanilla grass, holy grass, Seneca grass and alpine sweetgrass; Ojibwe names: Wiingashk (wii = spicy or aromatic, also to bind or twist; gashk = herb, according to Lynch and Lupfer 1995); Wiishkobi-mashkosi (as listed by Pomroy in part 2) CONTRIBUTORS: Erik Olson, Carol Warden, Matt Simon, Stephanie Judge, Kayla Arendt, Michael Chang, Jason Janzen 7 Drawing of Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica by Agnes Photographer: Robert W. Freckmann. Pictured: Chase from Norman C. Fassett's Grasses of Wisconsin. Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica (Freckmann Herbarium) (1951), in: Freckmann Herbarium DESCRIPTION: Sweetgrass is a native perennial grass. The culms are semi-erect, up to 30 inches tall, and arise from slender, creeping rhizomes. Leaves are few, rough-edged and have shiny, hairless undersides. Often it has a reddish-purple color near the base of the plant. The highly-prized longer leaves that grow on sterile shoots late in the season can exceed 18 inches in length. The very early season inflorescence is an open, pyramid-shaped, golden brown panicle with slender branches. Spikelets have 3 florets with awnless lemmas; glumes are thin, translucent and nearly equal in length. The fruit is a caryopsis (USDA). Sweetgrass spreads on slender, creeping rhizomes. Leaf clumps arise from belowground tissue and wither soon after flowering. Flowers are in pyramid-shaped clusters (Foster 2000). Lynch and Lupfer (1995) report taller plants, exceeding three feet in Ontario. CULTURAL USE: Sweetgrass is culturally important to many people, both in Europe and North America. American Indians widely used sweetgrass as incense for ceremonies. The Ojibwe braided sheaves of sweetgrass into a circle; ―when the head touches its roots the braid has no beginning or end, only the continuity, renewal, and eternity symbolized by the circle‖ (Lynch and Lupfer 1995). In Northern Europe, Hierochloe was strewn before church doors on saint's days (Freckmann Herbarium 2011). Tea has been used for coughs, sore throats, chafing, venereal infections, to stop vaginal bleeding, and expel afterbirth (Foster 2000). Windburn and chapping were treated through an infusion of sweetgrass stems soaked in water or a salve of sweetgrass water and grease. The sweetgrass water was also used as eyewash. Further listed uses include 8 perfume, hair wash, bedding, basketry, dermatological aid, cold remedy, cough medicine, eyewash, febrifuge, respiratory aid, analgesic, insecticide, veterinary aid, decoration and adornment (USDA). NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: Sweetgrass (i.e., Hierochloe hirta) occurs throughout the northern U.S.; its range includes Alaska and throughout the U.S. excluding the Southeast (USDA). Normally, it is not found in pure stands but among other grasses and shrubs in mid-successional communities (USDA). Sweetgrass is threatened due to over-collection (Foster 2008) and urbanization (Hurley et al. 2008). ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCES: Goldsmith and Murphey (2008) found that sweetgrass was an environmental generalist; however, it was sensitive to competition from other species, making it most common where there was little competition. Sweetgrass prefers open, moist areas and grows best in low-nutrient soil where competitors cannot outgrow it (Lynch and Lupfer 1995). Sweetgrass usually inhabits moist ground on shores (fresh or brackish), meadows, low prairies, at the edges of woods, bogs and marshes (USDA). Sweetgrass is a cool-season species that is extremely cold hardy. It goes dormant in cold weather and resprout once ground temperatures reach 40 oF. In the Northeast, Midwest and Great Lakes regions, flowering begins in the spring. It needs moderate amounts of light (White 2002), and can grow in partial shade and full sun. An overstory helps reduce stress from transpiration at high temperatures, as sweetgrass is not drought tolerant (USDA). RESTORATION: In a field experiment, Shebitz and Kimmerer (2005) found great restoration potential for sweetgrass because it is easily transplanted and reproduces vigorously. Sweetgrass is a useful plant for wetland and riparian restoration and protection/renovation of springs. Sweetgrass has potential to reduce erosion on moderately sloping hillsides with seeps (Shebitz and Kimmerer 2005); it controls soil erosion by increasing the amount of large water-stable aggregates in the soil (An et al. 2008). Sweetgrass spreads vigorously by creeping rhizomes. In the spring these rhizomes produce inconspicuous fruiting stems with sparse, short leaves. Longer leaves develop later from separate sterile basal shoots. Although sweetgrass can reproduce by seed, it is mostly infertile, producing few seedheads that contain few seeds. Seed germination follows a period of cold temperatures. Late fall, late winter, or early spring is the best time to plant the sweetgrass seed (USDA). Sweetgrass development from seed can be very slow. This coupled with the infertile nature of the species explains why plant division is the recommended method of reproducing sweetgrass. Divide by separating ramets that develop from the rhizomes of a spreading plant. Newly separated ramets do best if placed in the shade for 2–3 weeks while their roots establish. After this, transplant at 1-foot centers into areas of partial shade to full sun (USDA). Keep the soil moist but not saturated. Fertilize with a balanced lawn-starter 2-3 times during the establishment year and years following harvests. Organic fertilizers may also be used at 5 lbs. per 100 square feet. Sweetgrass should be weeded at least every other year. Longer leaves of the sterile shoots may be harvested several times during the year; however, the mid-season growth is considered superior. These leaves are gathered by grasping the shoots firmly near the ground and pulling until they break from the rootstock an inch or two below the surface of the soil (USDA). In Grand Portage it is common practice to cut the leaves at least one inch above the surface (B. Seitz, pers comm.). 9 Lynch and Lupfer (1995) recommended growing sweetgrass from plugs in isolated garden plots to avoid competition with lawn grasses in areas with moist sandy soil with at least a half day of sunlight. Shebitz and Kimmerer (2005) provided methods for growing sweetgrass in beds at a garden scale. Plantings of sweetgrass in small (20-sq.ft = 2.25-m2) plots with hairy vetch generated abundant tall blades that are desired by basketmakers; that method of cultivation was not labor intensive. Reestablishment of sweetgrass offered members and visitors of Kanatsiohareke a means to continue traditional practices associated with sweetgrass and benefit economically by selling baskets and medicine made with sweetgrass. LITERATURE CITED: An, S., Y. Huang, and F. Zheng. 2008. Aggregate characteristics during natural revegetation on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere 18:809-816. Foster, Steven, and James A. Duke. 2000. Eastern/Central Medicinal Plants and Herbs, Peterson Field Guides. 354. Freckmann Herbarium (Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point). ―Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica‖. n.d. Web. February 2011. <http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=HIEHIRsARC>. ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information System). ―Anthoxanthum hirtum‖. 2010. Web. February 2011. <http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=5089 21>. Lynch, B., and B. Lupfer. 1995. Sweet Grass (Wiingashk) Project. Project Report. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission. Odanah, WI. Shebitz, D.J., and R. W. Kimmerer. 2005. Reestablishing roots of a Mohawk community and a culturally significant plant: Sweetgrass. Restoration Ecology 13:257-264. White, D. 2002. Growth and clonal integration of sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Hierochloe hirta subsp. arctica‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. February 2011. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=HIHIA>. Abstracts and research highlights regarding sweetgrass: An, S., Y. Huang, and F. Zheng. 2008. Aggregate characteristics during natural revegetation on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere 18:809-816. Abstract: Field investigations and laboratory analysis were conducted to study the characteristics of soil water-stable aggregates during vegetation rehabilitation in typical grassland soils of the hilly-gullied loess area. The relationship between water-stable aggregates and other soil properties was analyzed using canonical correlation analysis and principal component analysis. The results show that during the natural revegetation, the aggregates >5 mm dominated and constituted between 50% and 80% of the total soil water-stable aggregates in most of the soil layers. The 2–5 mm aggregate class was the second main component. The mean value of water-stable aggregates 10 >5 mm within the 0–2 m soil profile under different plant communities decreased in the following order: Stipa grandis > Stipa bungeana Trin. > Artemisia sacrorum Ledeb. > Thymus mongolicus Ronn. > Hierochloe hirta (Schrank) Borbás, organic matter, and total N were the key factors that influenced the water stability of the aggregates. Total N and organic matter were the main factors that affected the water stability of the aggregates > 5 mm and 0.5–1 mm in size. The contents of Fe2O3, Al2O3, and physical clay (< 0.01 mm) were the main factors which affected the water stability of the 1–2 and 0.25–0.5 mm aggregates. Hurley, P., Halfacre, A., Levine, N., et al. 2008. Finding a ―disappearing‖ nontimber resource: Using grounded visualization to explore urbanization impacts on sweetgrass basketmaking in greater Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. The Professional Geographer 60:556-578. Abstract: Despite growing interest in urbanization and its social and ecological impacts on formerly rural areas, empirical research remains limited. Extant studies largely focus either on issues of social exclusion and enclosure or ecological change. This article uses the case of sweetgrass basketmaking in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, to explore the implications of urbanization, including gentrification, for the distribution and accessibility of sweetgrass, an economically important nontimber forest product (NTFP) for historically African American communities, in this rapidly growing area. We explore the usefulness of grounded visualization for research efforts that are examining the existence of "fringe ecologies" associated with NTFP. Our findings highlight the importance of integrated qualitative and quantitative analyses for revealing the complex social and ecological changes that accompany both urbanization and rural gentrification. Shebitz, D.J., and R. W. Kimmerer. 2005. Reestablishing roots of a Mohawk community and a culturally significant plant: Sweetgrass. Restoration Ecology 13:257-264. Abstract: The restoration potential of Sweetgrass (Anthoxanthum nitens (Weber) Y. Schouten and Veldkamp) was evaluated through a field experiment conducted on Kanatsiohareke, a Mohawk farm, and at the LaFayette Experiment Station near Syracuse, New York. The effects of competition reduction and two cover crops on Sweetgrass reestablishment success were examined. Sweetgrass was planted under four treatments: Sweetgrass alone; with existing, old- field vegetation; with a cover crop of Hairy vetch (Vicia villosa); and with a cover crop of Annual (Italian) ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). The experiment consisted of five replicates of the four treatments at both LaFayette and Kanatsiohareke. Sweetgrass biomass, height, reproduction rate, and survivorship were greatest in plots that were weeded to eliminate competition and in plots with Hairy vetch as a cover crop. A cover crop of Annual ryegrass resulted in reduced Sweetgrass growth and production. Highlights: used cover crops (hairy vetch, annual rye grass) to assist with establishment; hairy vetch cover crop increased biomass, height, reproduction rate, and survivorship; rye grass reduced growth and reproduction; sweet grass is easily transplanted; it can reproduce vigorously vegetatively; when grown with hairy vetch, its traits are beneficial for ethnobotanical uses and harvesting is easier. Goldsmith, F.B., and S. L. Murphy. 1980. The ecological requirements of Hierochloe odorata in Nova Scotia. Holarctic Ecology 3:224-232. Abstract: Hierochloe odorata (L.) Beauv. is restricted to the upper zone of salt marshes and rarely becomes dominant. In the field, the species was found not to have strict N, P, K 11 requirements. It grew in a range of pH values from 4.3 to 7.9, tolerated salinities up to 500 mhos and favored soils with a moisture content from 25 to 30%. It grew in situations with a mean water table between 14 and 28 cm below the surface. Natural shading in the field was found to increase the heights of plants by about 30%. The application of fertilizer in the field increased the height of sweet grass but also stimulated the growth of associated species. In the greenhouse, the effects of different soils and fertilizers on plant growth were assessed. Inorganic fertilizer (12:18:12) application produced more leaves and tillers than organic fertilizer (6:2:0). Sweet grass grows in a zone of reduced competition between the dune species and the salt-marsh species. Near the salt- marsh, the species may be limited by high salt concentration. The low levels of competition offered by cultivation and the responsiveness of the species to fertilizer suggests that cultivation of Hierochloe odorata may be successful. Highlights: nutrient requirements flexible; range of pH, 4.3-7.9; tolerates low levels of salinity (500 mhos); soil moisture content 25-30%; water table depth 14-28 cm; natural shading found to increase height by 30%; inorganic fertilizer produced the better results than organic; cultivation may be successful. White, D. 2002. Growth and clonal integration of Sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana. Highlights: high moisture content and light availability are very important (especially during growing season); typically found in meadows with some overstory; seems to prefer an open canopy w/protection from excessive heat and desiccation; transplanting entire genets would work best in harsh conditions; transplanting ―plugs‖ would work well in less harsh conditions 12 SUNCHOKES SCIENTIFIC NAMES: Helianthus tuberosus L. and H. tomentosus Michx. COMMON NAMES: Jerusalem artichoke, topinambour, sunroot, sunchoke, earth apple Ojibwe name: A'skibwan' TAXONOMIC NOTE: We use the common name ―sunchokes‖ hereafter. CONTRIBUTORS: Eric Booth, Alison McCleary, Andrea McMillen, Amanda Munsey, Karen Cardinal, Jason Londo, Blaine Wesley http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/02/ http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/ weed_herbarium/pop_ups/heltu3418.html DESCRIPTION (primarily from Kays and Nottingham 2008): Sunchoke can reproduce both sexually (seed production) and asexually (tuber production). It is a polyploid with 120 chromosomes that most likely originated from the hybridization of two species. Sunchoke is perennial as it produces reproductive tubers in addition to seeds. However, it is often grown in agriculture as an annual using the seed tuber for propagation. It is considered a colonizer that can invade open areas and occupy areas with native and cultivated species. The development of individual plants can be separated in to five states: emergence and canopy development, rhizome formation, flowering, tuberization and senescence. After seed tubers have been dormant for a sufficient period, the new growth cycle begins with the sprouting of the seed tuber and the emergence of individual sprouts. Sprouting will generally occur when soil temperatures reach 2 to 5 °C, and will occur faster with higher temperatures. When planting cultivars, emergence in spring usually begins 3 to 5 weeks after planting. During early stages of the development cycle, the plants invest carbon and nutrient resources aboveground. After sprouting, stem growth is followed by branching and leaf development. The size of the stem and branching depend on population density and photoperiod. Later in the season, sunchokes store resources belowground as rhizomes and tubers. Rhizomes 13 allow plants to expand laterally into adjacent areas. High population density can reduce rhizome formation, as can soil compaction. Compacted soil also makes it difficult to harvest the tubers. Tubers are a specialized reproductive storage organ. They develop at the distal end of the rhizome. The shape and size of the tubers can greatly vary with growing conditions and the time of development. A long-season cultivar goes into dormancy approximately 32 weeks after the seed tuber sprouts. This process does not occur simultaneously throughout all tubers in a clone, but gradually. Sunchoke tubers are freeze tolerant by the end of October, prior to leaf senescence. By late October tubers can tolerate –5° C and by mid December, tolerance increases to –11°C. The photoperiod stimulates flower production of sunchokes. The photoperiod in the more northern latitudes of the U.S. where H. tuberosus originates is favorable for extensive stem growth during the summer and flower and tuber formation in the fall. The onset of flowering ranges from 69 to 174 days after planting, and remain intact from 21 to 126 days. The flower has 10 – 20 yellow petals with a yellow-orange center with a maximum diameter of 3 1/2 inches. In order for seeds to be produced, the flowers must be cross-pollinated. Seed production is highly variable with location, clone, and year. Wild clones may produce up to 50 seeds per flower head. Wild populations generally produce more flowers, more seeds, and have higher seed viability than cultivated plants. The seeds display a strong dormancy at maturity, which can be overcome with stratification. Wild clones are more variable than cultivated clones. With greater seed production comes increased genetic diversity and greater potential for dispersal. CULTURAL USE (from Kays and Nottingham 2008): Sunchoke is one of the oldest cultivated crops in America with its first documented use being in 1605. It was then brought to France and England, where it became popular by 1617. It was a very important carbohydrate crop in Europe until the introduction of the potato. As early as 1622, Tobias Venner of England described sunchokes as a root that was often eaten with ―butter, vinegar, and pepper, by itself, or together with other meats (p. 19, Kays and Nottingham 2008).‖ It was not commonly cultivated in America earlier than 1623 due to its reputation of being fit only for the poor. After that, various social classes consumed the artichokes more frequently. The tubers were eaten as a source of carbohydrates, however, the introduction of the potato led to a decrease in sunchoke consumption. Sunchokes are also a good source of dietary fiber and fructose due to their storage of inulin instead of starch. The tubers are very high quality for food and feed uses and also contain abundant minerals such as iron, calcium, and potassium,. In addition, they are a good source of vitamins B and C, and beta-carotene. Today, sunchokes have a wide variety of chemical and nutritional uses. Sunchoke can be used as a vegetable, animal feed, production of biofuel, and a source of inulin, which occurs in the tubers. This compound has been a popular bulking agent since the 1990‘s, when artificial sweeteners became increasingly common and their use in baking caused a significant decrease in volume. When added to baked goods such as bread, inulin improved softness of the crumb, prolonged shelf life, and increased bread volume. Additionally, inulin is used as a low calorie fat replacer in some meats. Sunchokes are also important in fermentation reactions. It is used commercially to produce various common reagents, such as ethanol, acetone, butanol, 2,3-butanediol, lactic acid, and succinic acid. A health benefit is that sunchokes help combat obesity and diabetes. Sunchokes are considered to be nutraceutical supplements, meaning they provide medical or health benefits. 14 Much of the benefit is due to inulin, which is fermented in the colon and selectively alters the microflora found there. It promotes bifidobacteria, which eliminate undesirable microbes in the gut. Sunchokes are also considered to be beneficial for mineral absorption. Hundreds of European products, especially yogurt, contain inulin for its nutraceutical properties. One claim that a particular yogurt had cholesterol-lowering properties was even upheld in court. Inulin from sunchokes is rarely used medicinally unless it is in an extremely pure, fractionated form. Pure inulin is utilized to test for renal failure by injection to determine glomular filtration rate since inulin is not secreted or reabsorbed in the kidney. The concentration of inulin in urine and plasma can help determine renal function. Because sunchoke tubers are rich in carbohydrates and the crop requires little irrigation, it is being considered as an alternative food crop (Heiermann et al. 2009) and basis for biofuel production including ethanol and biodiesel (Cheng et al. 2009). Because of its versatility, demand for sunchokes has increased dramatically. NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: North-central USA. This plant thrives best in temperate regions (Kays and Nottingham 2008). It is generally accepted that the sunchokes originated in Canada, where it was historically more broadly distributed than at present. Its exact center of origin is not known, because it was widely cultivated by past civilizations and because it is not easy to track genetically. ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCES: Sunchoke needs a growing season of at least 4 to 5 months with 125 frost-free days. The highest tuber yields have been found in sandy loam soils with good fertility but sunchoke is well known for its tolerance to a wide range of soil conditions including marginal lands with low fertility. In areas with high precipitation, finer-grained soils could lead to water-logged soils and lower production. Optimal soil pH is in the range of 4.5 to 8.6 but slightly alkaline soils are the most favorable for production. In soils with low fertility, the addition of high-phosphate fertilizer can increase tuber yields. Mounding soil around the base of the plant can favor tuber formation by increasing the amount of buried stem where tubers can develop. Overall, sunchokes require very little management to achieve good tuber yields. However, some conditions and techniques can increase tuber yields; these include soil treatment, irrigation, optimal planting density (2 to 4 plants per square meter), time from planting to harvest, and weed control (Kays and Nottingham, 2008). Although sunchokes can grow in the shade, direct and full sunlight is necessary for optimal yields (Kays and Nottingham, 2008). Most cultivars require an annual average temperature between 6 and 26C. It is much more tolerant of frost than maize and other crops; it has even been grown in Alaska. Sunchoke is ―moderately tolerant‖ of salt compared to other species; however, high concentrations decrease plant growth. The degree of salt tolerance by seedlings is highly dependent upon region of origin (Long et al. 2009). Nitrogen is a major factor determining growth of sunchoke. However, too much fertilizer is not ideal for any species. A recent study linked photosynthetic activity to nitrogen fertilizers in an attempt to improve nitrogen use efficiency (Michalek and Sawicka 2008). Although this species is known for its tolerance of dry conditions, irrigation can have a large positive effect on tuber yield. Excess irrigation, however, can lead to excessive top growth and reduced tuber yield. RESTORATION: Sunchokes should be easy to reintroduce to areas with suitable soil, moisture 15 and light. Due to the fact that individual plants can grow up to 3 meters in height, adequate spacing between individuals is important to reduce shading effects. With its tall stems and shallow roots, plants can be susceptible to damage by wind. Techniques to address this problem include the use of support stakes/poles, building up soil around the stems, and cutting off the tops of the plant above 1.5 meters. Due to its size and height, the shade produced by this species leaf canopy prevents weeds from establishing at the base. However, it typically takes 2 months for sufficient shade to develop and during that time, weeds can be a problem. In a field study in NE Portugal, Rodrigues et al. (2007) concluded that the best planting density was 2 plants per square meter in both irrigated and rain-fed conditions. Under the irrigated condition, nitrogen fertilization significantly increased tuber yield only when seed-tubers were used. Lower yields of tuber were found with botanical seed. LITERATURE CITED: Heiermann, M., M. Plöchl, B. Linke, H. Schelle, and C. Herrmann. 2009. Biogas Crops – Part I: Specifications and Suitability of Field Crops for Anaerobic Digestion. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. (XI) Manuscript 1087. Kays, S.J. and S. F. Nottingham. 2007. Biology and Chemistry of Jerusalem Artichoke. Helianthus tuberosus L. New York, NY: CRC Press Long, X. H., J. H. Chi, L. Liu, Q. Li, and Z. P. Liu. 2009. Effect of seawater stress on physiological and biochemical responses of five Jerusalem artichoke ecotypes. Pedosphere. 19:208–216. Michalek, W., and B. Sawicka. 2008. Photosynthetic activity of Helianthus tuberosus L. depending on soil and mineral fertilization. Polish Journal of Soil Science. XLI/2. Rodrigues, M.A., L. Sousa, J.E. Cabanas, M. Arrobas. 2007. Tuber yield and leafmineral composition of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) grown under different cropping practices. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 5:545-553 Yun Cheng,Wenguang Zhou, Chunfang Gao, Kenneth Lan, Yang Gao and QingyuWu. 2009. Biodiesel production from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tuber by heterotrophic microalgae Chlorella protothecoides. Journal of Chemistry Technology and Biotechnology. 84:777–781 16 WILD AND CULTIVATED CHIVES SCIENTIFIC NAME: Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum (L.) Hartman and A. schoenoprasum L. COMMON NAMES: English: wild chives, chives; French: Ciboulette/Civette; Italian: Cipollina; Japanese: Ezo-negi; Spanish: Cebolleta; Portugese: Cebolinha-francesa (Wiersema and Leon 1999) TAXONOMIC NOTE: Just as we refer to northern sweetgrass as ―sweetgrass,‖ we refer to wild chives as ―chives‖ because that name is commonly used and recognized. CONTRIBUTORS: Sarah Reuth, Angelique Edgerton, Alissa Santurri, Hadley Boehm, and Kristin Millies Photo by Susan R. Crispin, USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., Michigan Natural Features and A. Brown. 1913. An illustrated flora of the Inventory northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions. Vol. 1: 497. DESCRIPTION: Wild chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum) is a culturally important species found at Grand Portage National Monument. Cultivated chives (var. schoenoprasum) and wild chives (var. sibricum) have been grown widely for a variety of uses including food flavoring, medicine, religious significance and ornamentation (Fenwick and Hanley 1985). Chives are perennial monocots of the family Liliaceae (USDA). They are related to garlic and onions; however, they do not have underground storage structures like the rest of their family members (Fenwick and Hanley 1985). Chives are the only Allium member native to the Arctic, North America, and Eurasia (Fenwick and Hanley 1985). 17 Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum: The cultivated variety is an erect perennial forb with a characteristic onion-like odor. It grows to heights of 4 to 20 inches (Plantlife.org 2008) and has an 8-20-innch (20-50 cm) tall stem (Freckmann Herbarium). It has a stem-like bulb (Plantlife.org 2008) that is stout and round with membranous outer layers, which grows up to 10 mm thick (Freckmann Herbarium). Flowers are purple to pink and occur in dense, rounded umbel inflorescences. Individual flowers are 6-parted and 1/3 to 1/2 inches long (Plantlife.org, 2008) and are tubular-bell-shaped (Freckmann Herbarium). Each flower head has approximately 30 flowers, with 2 lanceolate to ovate bracts. Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum blooms between May and August (Freckmann Herbarium). Fruits of Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum are 3-lobed (Freckmann Herbarium) capsules (Plantlife.org 2008) with 3 to 6 honey-combed seeds (Freckmann Herbarium). Leaves of Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum are along the stem (Plantlife.org, 2008) and cylindrical (Freckmann Herbarium). They are alternate, typically found in pairs, and grow to be 1 to 7 mm thick with the upper leaves sheathing the stem for approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of its length (Freckmann Herbarium). Individual leaves are hollow and round in cross-section (Plantlife.org 2008). Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum: Compared to cultivated chives, the wild variety has coarser, shorter leaves and fewer bulbs (Tardif and Morriset 1990). Further information on the life history and distribution of the wild variety was available from the Minnesota DNR http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PMLIL0223 3# and the USDA PLANTS database http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALSCS. CULTURAL USE: The Chinese first recorded the use of chives in 3000 B.C. It has been said that Marco Polo brought chives back with him from the East. In western cultures chives began to appear in gardens and food dishes in the 1500s (Rayment, 2009). Medieval people used chives to ward off evil by hanging bunches around their homes. Gardeners planted chives around the border of their gardens to keep harmful insects at bay. Gypsies also used chives in fortune-telling (Rayment, 2009). Chives had a wide range of traditional medical uses in the Middle East, specifically recorded in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. They were used to cure headache, colds and stomach problems. Chives were applied fresh or after boiling directly to the skin, the bulbs were dried, crushed and snuffed, or simply consumed (Keusgen et al. 2006). In the New World, wild chives were used as appetite stimulants and digestive aids (Freckmann Herbarium). The Cree People in Saskatchewan used wild chives for food by adding them to boiled fish, using them for flavoring, and eating them fresh (Leighton 1985). The Ojibwe and the Sioux Peoples used chives in their native wild rice dishes, called ―Manomem‖ (Wild Rice Recipies from Minnesota). As medicine, wild chives were used to treat coughs and colds, sinus problems and stomach worms, as dressings for wounds, and to treat a variety of other injuries. As cough and cold medicines, plant juices were boiled into a syrup or the bulb was coated in sugar and eaten. As sinus treatments, dried bulbs were burned for use as a fumigant or ground and inhaled through the nose. For stomach worms, chives were soaked in water for 12 hours, and the water was consumed on an empty stomach. To treat wounds, the juice of chives was applied to sphagnum moss and used as an antiseptic dressing. Crushed chive bulbs were further used for a variety of injuries, including insect bites, burns and snakebites (Freckmann Herbarium). 18 Although modern science has disproven some of the traditionally-speculated medicinal uses of chives, other uses have been validated. Cultivated species show inhibition of tumor cell growth, and a high intake of Allium is associated with reduced risk of esophageal, stomach, and prostate cancers (Štajner et al. 2008). The plants also contain vitamins A and C and calcium. Kidney and bladder weaknesses have been treated with chives (Ecological Gardens Newsletter 2004). Today, wild chives are eaten as a vegetable in salads and meat dishes. They can be eaten fresh, pickled or cooked (Freckmann Herbarium). Although enjoyed by humans, chives display slight toxicity if ingested in high amounts by some animals including cats and cattle (Wiersema and Leon, 1999). Cats are attracted to chives because they look like grass (Copley 2009). Chives can be useful as a pest repellant, especially for Japanese beetles. Plantings with parsley, tomato, beets, carrots, apples, and roses have proven to be beneficial for both parties. Due to their fibrous roots, chives are beneficial for building soil and limiting erosion (Ecological Gardens Newsletter 2004). RESTORATION: Plant seeds or bulbs in areas with ample light. Wild chives is a hardy plant; it will grow in nearly any soil (Craig 2006). Wild chives is adapted to dry and sunny conditions, and is tolerant to drought and oxidative stress (Egert and Tevin, 2002). It prefers full sun or partial shade (Craig 2006). Chives is susceptible to fungal diseases including downy mildew and onion smut (Fenwick and Hanley 1985). A recent study in California reported the occurrence of leaf blight in chives (Koike et al. 2009). LITERATURE CITED: Copley, J. Plants that are safe for cats. Cat Care. 2009. Web. October 2009. <http://cat- care.suite101.com/article.cfm/plants_that_are_safe_for_cats>. Craig, W.J. 2006. Chive Talkin‘. Vibrant Life 22:20. Ecological Gardens Newsletter. Minneapolis, MN. 2004. Web. October 2009. <http://www.ecologicalgardens.com/files/newsletter_winter_2004.pdf>. Egert, M. and M. Tevin. 2002. Influence of drought on some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress in leaves of chives (Allium schoenoprasum). Environmental and Experimental Botany 48:43-49. Fenwick, G.R. and A. B. Hanley. 1985. The genus Allium. 1. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 22:199-271. Freckmann Herbarium (Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point). ―Allium schoenoprasum‖. n.d. Web. February 2011. <http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=ALLSCH>. Keusgen, M., R. M. Fritsch, H. Hisorie, P. A. Kurbonova, and F. O. Khassanov. 2006. Wild Allium species (Alliaceae) used in folk medicine of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2 (8). Available online. < http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/2/1/18>. Koike, S. T., L. J. du Toit, and M. L. Derie. 2009. A leaf blight of chive caused by Botrytis byssoidea in California. Plant Disease 93:844. Leighton, A. L. 1985. Wild plant use by the Woods Cree (Nih*ithawak) of east-central Saskatchewan. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada. 19 Rayment, W. J. ―History of chives‖. 2007. Web. October 2009. <http://www.indepthinfo.com/chives/history.shtml>. Štajner, D., R. Igic, B. M. Popovic, and D. Malencic. 2008. Comparative study of antioxidant properties of wild growing and cultivated Allium species. Phytotherapy Research 22:113- 117. Tardif, B. and P. Morisset. 1990. Clinal morphological variation of Allium schoenoprasum in Eastern North America. Taxon 39:417-429. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Allium schoenoprasum‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. October 2009. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALSC>. Wiersema, J. H. and B. Leon. 1999. World Economic Plants: a standard reference. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 27. Wild Chives - Allium schoenoprasum. Plantlife.org. 2008. Web. October 2008. <http://montana.plant-life.org/species/allium_schoe.htm>. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Amarawardana, L., P. Bandara, V. Kumar, J. Pettersson, V. Ninkovic, and R. Glinwood. 2007. Olfactory response of Myzus persicae (Homoptera : Aphididae) to volatiles from leek and chive: Potential for intercropping with sweet pepper. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science 57:87-91. Borlongan, J. 2008. Chives (Allium schoenoprasum). 2008. Web. September 2008. <http://www.gardenguides.com/plants/info/herbs/chives.asp>. Brueckner, B., and H. Perner. 2006. Distribution of nutritive compounds and sensory quality in the leafs of chives (Allium schoenoprasum L.). Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality 80:155-159. Engelke, T., and T. Tatlioglu. 2000. The wi gene causes genic male sterility in Allium schoenoprasum. Plant Breeding 119(4), 325-328. Fenwick, G. R., and A.B. Hanley. 1985. Genus Allium. Part 2. CRC critical reviews in food science and nutrition 22:273-377. Fenwick, G. R., and A. B. Hanley. 1985. The genus Allium. 3. CRC critical reviews in food science and nutrition 23(1):1-73. Friesen, N., and F. R. Blattner. 2000. RAPD analysis reveals geographic differentiations within Allium schoenoprasum L. (Alliaceae). Plant Biology 2:297-305. Han, C., K. Pan, N. Wu, J. Wang, and W. Li. 2008. Allelopathic effect of ginger on seed germination and seedling growth of soybean and chive. Scientia Horticulturae 116: 330- 336. Holmes, D. S., and S. M. Bougourd. 1989. B-chromosome selection in Allium schoenoprasum. I. Natural populations. Heredity 63:83-87. Kapolna, E., and P. Fodor. 2007. Bioavailability of selenium from selenium-enriched green onions (Allium fistulosum) and chives (Allium schoenoprasum) after 'in vitro' gastrointestinal digestion. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 58:282- 296. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Rare Species Explorer. 2007. Web. September 2009. <http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer>. 20 Nguyen, N. H., H. E. Driscoll, and C. D. Specht. 2008. A molecular phylogeny of the wild onions (Allium; Alliaceae) with a focus on the western North American center of diversity. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47:1157-1172. Stevens, J.P., and S.M. Bougourd. 1988. Inbreeding depression and the outcrossing rate in natural populations of Allium schoenoprasum L. (wild chives). Heredity 60:257-261. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. September 2008. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALSC>. University of Connecticut Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Plant Growth Facilities. ―Allium schoenoprasum (Alliaceae)‖. n.d. Web. September 2008. <http://florawww.eeb.uconn.edu/198501258.html>. Wild Rice Recipes from Minnesota. 1999. Web. October 2009. <http://www.brownielocks.com/wildrice.html>. 21 CARAWAY SCIENTIFIC NAME: Carum carvi L. COMMON NAMES: caraway, caraway seed (Plants for a Future, 1996) CONTRIBUTORS: James Doherty, Julie Pignotti, Laurel Wilson USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Steve Hurst @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database Possessions. Vol. 2: 659. NATIVE DISTRIBUTION (Plants for a Future 1996): Research suggests that it is native to Southeast England. However, it is rarely naturalized in Britain. It is also found in India, Iraq, Kurdistan, Spain, and Turkey. LIFE HISTORY (Kiviniemi 2008a): Caraway is a short-lived monocarp or ―facultative biennial‖ (annual varieties exists, biennial variety is often able to persist for several years even amidst grazing disturbance). It flowers from June to July, and the seeds ripen from July to August and it flowers only once--at a size that maximizes fitness. Its nectar and pollen attract insect pollinators. It has hermaphrodites, but can out-cross. Wind can also act as a pollinator and pollination is likely not a limiting factor so much as having the resources and energy to make pollen (Bouwmeester and Smid 1995). Seeds are mericarps with no apparent features to enhance dispersal. Continuous disturbance is important, as is characteristic of early successional habitats. 22 CULTURAL USE: The seed is an antiseptic, antispasmodic, aromatic, carminative, digestive- aid, emmenagogue, expectorant, galactogogue, and stimulant (Plants for a Future 1996). It can be chewed raw for the almost immediate relief of indigestion and can also be made into infusions (GardenGuides.com). The seed is also used in the treatment of bronchitis, diverticulitis, bronchitis and is an ingredient of cough remedies. Moreover, the seed is also said to increase the production of breast milk in nursing mothers, ease menstrual pain, eliminate flatulence, treat failing vision, and curb the loss of appetite (Plants for a Future 1996; Medical Uses of Caraway 1999) Caraway has a long history of use as a household remedy, especially in the treatment of digestive complaints. Its antispasmodic action soothes the digestive tract and its carminative action relieves bloating caused by wind. It is often added to laxative medicines to prevent griping (Plants for a Future 1996). Caraway was also used as medicine by Sumerians, Egyptians, and as currency by sixth- century Persians. In Germany caraway bread was thought to ward off demons, and caraway seeds were placed in coffins. The seeds have also been thought to prevent theft and were included in love potions in Medieval times (Methias 2002) Caraway can be eaten raw or cooked. Its spicy flavor is enjoyed in bread, salads, and vegetables. It is high in fat and protein and is often chewed after a meal in order to sweeten the breath and relieve heartburn. An essential oil from the seed is used as a flavoring in ice cream, candy, and soft drinks. Crushed seeds are brewed into a tea (has a soothing effect on digestion). The root is cooked for use as a vegetable. Raw leaves are used to flavor soups; young leaves can be used in salads, and older leaves can be cooked as spinach. NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: Caraway prefers moist meadows, arable land, and waste places from lowland to mountain elevations. Specifically, the plant prefers light (sandy), medium (loamy) and heavy (clay) soils. It grows well in cultivated beds and ordinary garden soils. Also, it tolerates a pH between 4.8-7.6 (Plants for a Future 1996). Experiments demonstrated healthy caraway populations on well-drained dry-mesic grassland soils (Kiviniemi 2008a). Plants grow well in either full sun or partial shade (Plants for a Future 1996). It has been demonstrated that full sun produces more essential oils (Bouwmeester et al. 1995a) and perhaps better-tasting seeds (GardenGuides.com). RESTORATION: Caraway grows well in ―semi-natural‖ areas and disturbance is not a problem for this plant. Despite the fact that caraway seeds lack any specialized mechanism for dispersal and they do not persist in long-lived seed banks. The results of a sowing experiment in 23 grasslands in Sweden demonstrated establishment by caraway at every site (Kiviniemi 2008b). Because the meadow at Grand Portage National Monument is ruderal or ―semi-natural‖ it should be little problem to sustain this species. Caraway is deep rooted and can help break up compacted sub-soil, which likely underlies the wet meadow areas that were historically used for cattle pasture. It grows well with other plants, especially those that are shallow-rooted (except fennel and wormwood). The flowers attract parasitic wasps, which prey on aphids and help to reduce populations of insect pests (Plants for a Future 1996). 23 LITERATURE CITED: Bouwmeester, H. J., and H. G. Smid. 1995. Seed yield n caraway (Carum carvi) .1. Role of pollination. Journal of Agricultural Science 124,235-244. Bouwmeester, H. J., J. A. R. Davies, H.G. Smid, and R. S. A. Welten. 1995a. Physioloigical limitations to carbon yield in caraway (Carum carvi L). Industrial Crops and Products 4:39-51. Bouwmeester, H. J., H. G. Smid, and E. Loman. 1995b. Seed yield in caraway (Carum carvi) .2. Role of assimilate availability. Journal of Agricultural Science 124,245-251. Evenhuis A, B. Verdam, M. Gerlagh, and H. M. Goossenvandegeijn. 1995. Studies on major diseases of caraway (Carum carvi ) in The Netherlands. Industrial Crops and Products 4:53-61. GardenGuides.com. ―Caraway (Carum carvi)‖. 2008. Web. October 2008. <http://www.gardenguides.com/plants/info/herbs/caraway.asp>. Government of Saskatchewan, Agriculture. ―Caraway‖. 2006. Web. December 2008. <http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=3ab32959-9a01-4d97-b97d- feb19a251b86>. Kiviniemi, K. 2008a. Remnant population dynamics in the facultative biennial Carum carvi in fragmented semi-natural grasslands. Population Ecology. Available online. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1q13tk71133x4n4/>. Kiviniemi, K. 2008b. Effects of fragment size and isolation on the occurrence of four short-lived plants in semi-natural grasslands. Acta Oecologica-International Journal of Ecology 33:56-65. Langberger, M.W. and A.R. Davis. 2002. Temporal changes in floral nectar production, reabsorption, and composition associated with dichogamy in annual caraway (Carum carvi; Apiaceae). American Journal of Botany 89:1588-1598. Machowicz-Stefaniak, Z. and E. Zalewska. 2008. Biodiversity of fungi colonizing different parts of caraway (Carum carvi L.). Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities. 11(1) Medicinal uses of Caraway. 1999. Web. October 2008. <http://www.gardensablaze.com/HerbCarawayMed.htm>. Methias, M.E. ―Caraway‖. Fall 2002. Web. October 2008. <http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/membgnewsletter/volume5number4/index.html> Plants for a Future: Edible, medicinal, and useful plants for a healthier world. 1996. Web. October 2008. <http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Carum+carvi>. 24 GREENE’S RUSH SCIENTIFIC NAME: Juncus greenei Oakes and Tuck. CONTRIBUTORS: Kayla Arendt, Michael Chang, Jason Janzen USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United Photograph: Emmet J. Judziewicz States, Canada and the British Possessions. Vol. 1: 472. DESCRIPTION: Greene‘s rush is a perennial herb with a basal tuft of grass-like leaves that grow to 70 cm (LJWC). Each plant grows up to 30 culms from short, densely branched rhizomes. The leaves are dark green, leathery, and terete. The terminal inflorescences are usually congested and up to 8 cm long, surpassed by a primary bract. The flowers consist of two bracteoles, and 3 mm dark-green lanceolate inner and outer tepals. The 3-locular ellipsoid capsules are dark brown and range from 1-4 mm long. The dark tan lunate seeds range from 0.5-0.7 mm in diameter. The species is diploid with 40 pairs of chromosomes for every mature plant (FNA). Greene‘s rush flowers during June-September and produces fruit from July-October (Burns 1984). NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: Greene‘s rush grows naturally in northeast North America from New Brunswick to New Hampshire, mostly near the coast. It also is found inland from southwest Ontario to Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota (Burns 1984). 25 Greene‘s rush grows well in soils that are moist or dry, sandy, and well drained. The species tolerates disturbances in pine lands, near lake shores, among sand dunes (FNA), swales, fields, clearings, inter-dune depressions, and along railroads and roadsides (Burns 1984). RESTORATION: Greene‘s rush is susceptible to over-shading by woody species during succession. Its recovery potential is presumed good since it appears able to colonize disturbed areas (Burns 1984). It is identified as endangered in Ohio and Vermont and as extirpated in Pennsylvania (USDA). LITERATURE CITED: Burns, J. 1984. Juncus greenei fact sheet. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. Available online. <http://dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Rare_Plants/20102011RareNativeOhioPlants/tabid/22557/De fault.aspx>. FNA (Flora of North America). ―Juncus greenei‖. n.d. Web. October 2009. <http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=222000137>. LJWC (Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center). ―Juncus greenei‖. n.d. Web. October 2009. <http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=JUGR>. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Juncus greenei‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. October 2009. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ALSC>. 26 VASEY’S RUSH SCIENTIFIC NAME: Juncus vaseyi Engelm. CONTRIBUTORS: Kyle Magyera and Nick St. Martin USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Britton, N.L., and A. Brown. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions. Vol. 1: 471. DESCRIPTION: Juncus vaseyi has a grass-like structure and small, 6-petal flowers. Its stems are upright and erect and 20-30 cm tall. Leaves arise near the base of the plant; they are erect, terete, slender, and up to 30 cm long. Flowers occur in groups of 5-30 on a branching limb off of the base. It has 6 sepals and petals per flower, which are pale green to greenish-tan with 3-valved capsules. J. vaseyi is considered to be anemophilous (wind pollinated). Individuals have with hair-like structures along stigmatic surfaces that help collect air-borne pollen (Judd et al. 1999). Seeds are tan, elliptical in shape, and 1-1.5 mm long with a tail at each end. Note that Haines (2003) reported a range of seed lengths as 1.7-2.2 mm. Flowering and fruiting occur in July, although capsules contain seed through September indicating a slow release over at least two months. J. vaseyi is a perennial species that reproduces vegetatively via short, compact rhizomes. Juncus vaseyi is morphologically similar to its close relative, J. greenei. In addition, J. vaseyi may hybridize with J. tenuis resulting in the hybrid J. x oronensis. Juncus x oronensis has been found growing with J. vaseyi at known locations in Maine (McKenny 2004). NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: Although dispersed by wind, Juncus vaseyi is mainly propagated by water. A New England study suggests that water may be a primary factor in long-distance movement of propagules. Also, wet seeds adhere to waterfowl, which transport the species between watersheds (Haines 2003). Juncus vaseyi is an early successional plant that colonizes sites after disturbance, but is 27 commonly outcompeted by woody plants during succession (McKenny 2004). Although found in a variety of north temperate and boreal habitats, Vasey‘s rush is a very rare plant associated with Great Lakes Basin coastal plain marshes dominated by grasses and rushes (Kost 2000). It typically occurs on sand deposits associated with postglacial lakes and outwash channels. The sandy soils of the coastal plain marsh are strongly to very strongly acidic and nutrient deficient. Organic deposits of peat, muck, or sandy peat, generally of the folist type, are sometimes found above sandy substrate. In some locations, a clay layer occurs several meters below the sand (Kost 2000). J. Vaseyi tends to occur in areas with hydric soils and is frequently present in wetland communities such as wet meadows, shrub carrs, and shallow marshes. It can also be found in wetter or drier conditions, in some regions. For example, in northeastern United States, J. vaseyi inhabits dry-mesic mixed conifer hardwood forests, and in Michigan, it is common in seasonally- wet open areas on rocks and sand, typically in partially acidic substrates (Voss 1972). Along the Lake Michigan shoreline, this species is frequently found in spring runoff channels dominated by scattered jack pine. Its variability indicates a tendency to occupy sites with seasonal saturation and inundation. Some observers have correlated greater growth with full sun (McKenny 2004). Common associates of J. vaseyi are bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), other rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex sp.), twig-rush (Cladium mariscoides), shrubby cinquefoil (Dasiphora fruticosa), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), Sullivant's milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii), purple milkweed, swamp thistle (Cirsium muticum), eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), marsh blazing star (Liatris spicata), whorled loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia), grass-of-Parnassus (Parnassia palustris), smooth hedge nettle (Stachys tenuifolia), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), Missouri ironweed (Vernonia missurica), Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), common bone set (Eupatorium perfoliatium), and spike-rush (Eleocharis acicularis), according to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. RESTORATION: Restoring habitat is a key to sustaining this species, because many of its former habitats have been degraded and lost to agriculture, development, hydrological alterations, and fire suppression (Michigan Natural Features Inventory). Once reintroduced, habitat management largely consists of maintaining the appropriate hydrology and disturbance regimes. Because J. vaseyi prefers open habitat, woody vegetation needs to be controlled. Effective tools for sustaining herbaceous vegetation are prescribed burns and manual brush removal. LITERATURE CITED: Brooks, R. E., and S. E. Clements. 2000. Juncaceae. Pages 211–267 in Flora of North America, Volume 22. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. DeFilipps, Robert A. 1964. A taxonomic study of Juncus in Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 71:296-319 Haines, A. 2003. Juncus vaseyi Engelm.Vasey‘s Rush. Conservation and Research Plan for New England. Judd, W. S., C. S. Campbell, E. A. Kellogg, and P. F. Stevens. 1999. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. Kost, M. A. 2000. Natural community abstract for coastal plain marsh. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 5 pp. 28 USDA Forest Service (eastern division). 2004. Conservation Assessment for Juncus vaseyi Engelmann (Vasey‘s rush). Hiawatha National Forest. Available online. < www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/Juncus%20vaseyi.pdf>. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. ―Juncus Vaseyi – Vasey‘s Rush‖. 2007. Web. March 2011. <http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/species.cfm?id=15415>. Voss, E.G. 1972. Michigan Flora. Vol. 1. Cranbrook Institute of Science and University of Michigan Herbarium. pp. 381-386. 29 SMOOTH BROME SCIENTIFIC NAME: Bromus inermis Leyss. COMMON NAMES: smooth brome, awnless brome CONTRIBUTORS: Karen Cardinal, Jason Londo, Blaine Northcraft http://www.nps.gov/wica/ http://www.grossseed.com/ naturescience/images/Smooth- resources/brin2_003_svp+ Bromegrass.jpg smoth+broam.jpg DESCRIPTION: Bromus inermis is a cold season, perennial grass that spreads by seeding and aggressive rhizomes. The average stem height is anywhere from 2 to 4 feet, and produces many basal and stem leaves that can vary in size from 4 to 10 inches. The leaves of smooth brome often have a characteristic transverse ―W‖ wrinkle near their tips (USDA). The flowering heads of smooth brome have 4-10 branching spikes, with each spike being 1-2 inches in length. Roughly 10 blunt florets make up each spike, with the florets turning to a purple-brown color as the mature from June to August (ODNR). Smooth brome is a cool season grass that grows early in spring to late in fall. In the Chicago area, new shoots emerge as early as mid-March and flowering primordial are first seen in early April. Stems elongate from early May to late April, with the boot stage starting in mid-to- late May in Wisconsin and Illinois. Smooth brome is fully headed and blooming in early June in Illinois, and mid-June and early July in Alberta. Seeds ripen in July in Illinois and in August in Alberta. During the spring boot stage, carbohydrate levels are lowest, increasing as internodes elongate until plant begins heading. In Wisconsin, maximum total stored carbohydrates occurred 30 at seed maturity (mid-July), with small peaks in early spring (pre-boot) and fall (Sather 2009). Smooth brome is open-pollinated and self-incompatible. Plants produce 156 to 10,080 viable seeds per plant from 47 to 160 seed heads per plant. Seed predators include Itonidid midges and Chalcid flies. One study observed ants sequestering the seeds, which then resulted in new smooth brome patches on anthills (Sather 2009). Cold stratifications for 1-14 days allows for early spring shoot growth, followed by vernalization during a possible cold spell, leading to the development of flowering panicles in the same year (Sather 2009). Before or during primordial formation a minimum of 5 to 14 leaves must develop in order to flower in any year, and a critical daylength of 13 hours must occur for flowering, according to greenhouse studies. In comparison the flowering daylength is 17 to 18 hours when temperatures are warm, and in Alberta studies, little flowering was observed when air temperatures fell below 60 degrees Fahrenheit (Sather 2009). Smooth brome forms rhizomes and sod. Within 5 days of seed germination the first adventitious roots develop, followed by rhizome formation as early as 3 weeks after germination. The majority of the root mass develops near the surface associated with creeping rhizomes. However, the root system can reach depths of 4.7 feet, contributing to drought resistance. Greenhouse and field tests in Wisconsin suggest that smooth brome roots grow best in silty compared to sandy soils, and that it experiences high mortality in organic soils. Artificial aeration of silt loam has been shown to promote growth. However, the relationship between soil aeration and smooth brome mortality has not been investigated. Researchers estimate that inundation tolerance is limited to 24 days, specifically during the spring (Sather 2009). CULTURAL USE: Smooth brome is a useful food for livestock in the form of hay, pasture, or silage because it is high in protein and relatively low in crude-fiber content. It is also used in erosion control, due to its extensive rhizome/root system and sod forming characteristics (USDA). NATIVE DISTRIBUTION: Bromus inermis is a Eurasian species ranging from France to Siberia. In 1884, it was introduced into the United States by the California Experiment Station (Sather 2009). Smooth brome grows commonly on roadsides, riverbanks, and edges of fields, woods and pastures. Within the United States many agricultural strains have developed from the natural ―northern‖ and ―southern‖ strains, with the southern strain being more tolerant to heat and drought (Sather 2009). Bromus inermis is now found in all of North America excluding Florida and Alabama according to the USDA distribution map. MANAGEMENT IN RESTORATION SITES: Smooth brome is most invasive in cooler climates, but it is resistant to temperature extremes as well as drought. It becomes very susceptible to disease in high humidity. The plant tolerates pH 6.0 to 7.5 but grows best in soil that is slightly acidic, to slightly alkaline. It prefers clay loam that is well drained but is also able to grow in course-textured soils with adequate moisture and fertility. It grows poorly in soils that are high in soluble salts (USDA). Overstory vegetation is another limiting factor. Seed production, numbers of shoots and rhizomes, and dry weight of all plant parts are reduced by shade (Sather 2009). 31 The ability of smooth brome to establish early in the growing season allows it to out- compete native grasses and become highly invasive. Smooth brome is unable to grow as a pure stand without heavy applications of nitrogen in early spring and fall. Smooth brome can be used to improve soil in some restoration contexts. Its heavy sod is an exceptional soil conditioner, and it can be plowed out after 3 to 4 years (USDA). The rhizomes are observed to live one year. Old brome fields become ―sod bound‖ with nitrogen deficiency and reduced shoot density (Sather 2009). Combinations of mechanical and chemical controls might be the most effective. A spring burn followed by an herbicide (glyphosate) reduced densities of smooth brome. However, native species were negatively affected (Grilz and Romo 1995). Burning after shoots emerge in the late spring sometimes favors native warm-season species over smooth brome; however, if done too early it can favor smooth brome. A single burn is not sufficient and may result in full recovery of smooth brome densities in following years. However, repeated burning during late stages of growth have been effective in controlling biomass (Willson and Stubbendiek 1997, Howard 1996). Clipping smooth brome after its period of growth can be effective as well as mowing in April (Willson 2000). While growth rates are highest when daytime temperatures are around 18.3-24.9 degrees C, growth responses have been shown to vary considerably with cultivar and region (Howard 1996). An herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate (e.g., RoundupÂ® or GlyproÂ®) can be effective when applied to dense populations in April or May. However, extreme care is needed to avoid non-target species since glyphosate is not a selective herbicide. Atrazine has also been shown to reduce the productivity and density of smooth brome, but with significant collateral damage also done to restored native warm-season grasses when the herbiced was applied in late April (Willson 2000). In both cases, the negative impacts of herbicides on wildlife need to be considered and caution used in application. LITERATURE CITED: Grilz, P. L. and J. T. Romo. 1995. Management considerations for controlling smooth brome in fescue prairie. Natural Areas Journal 15:148-156. Howard, J. L. 1996. ―Bromus inermis‖. Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available online. <http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/>. ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves). ―Bromus inermus‖. Invasive Plants of Ohio. n.d. Web. October 2009. <http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/dnap/invasive/13brome/tabid/1990/Default.aspx>. Sather, N. 2009. Element stewardship abstract for awnless brome, smooth brome. The Nature Conservancy. Available online. <www.imapinvasives.org/GIST/ESA/esapages/documnts/bromine.pdf>. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Bromus inermis‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. September 2008. <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=BRIN2>. Willson, G. D. and J. Studdendiek. 2000. A provisional model for smooth brome management in degraded tallgrass prairie. Ecological Restoration 18:34-38. Willson, G. D., and J. Stubbendiek. 1997. Fire effects on four growth stages of smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss.). Natural Areas Journal 17:306-312. 32 REED CANARY GRASS SCIENTIFIC NAME: Phalaris arundinacea L. CONTRIBUTORS: Hadley Boehm and Kristin Millies; supplementary references from Michael Healy. USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Hitchcock, A.S. (rev. A. Chase). 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 200. Steve Hurst @ USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database Washington, DC. DESCRIPTION: Reed canary grass is a cool-season, C3, clonal, perennial member of the grass family (Poaceae). It inhabits temperate regions in Europe, Asia and North America (Kercher and Zedler, 2004a), and it has invaded inland temperate wetlands in North America (Galatowitsch et al., 1999). The European type is considered to be more aggressive (WDNR). Both Eurasian and native ecotypes are present in the U.S., however, there is no reliable method to tell them apart (WDNR). Reed canary grass grows approximately 0.5-2 m in height with flat, rough leaf blades approximately 9-24 cm long and 0.5-2 cm wide (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987; WDNR). It flowers greenish purple to beige from April-August (WDNR). Flowers occur on spikelets arranged on 8- 41 cm long panicles in dense clusters on 5-31 cm branches (WDNR). Reed canary grass has long, membranous ligules, which help distinguish it (WDNR). Seeds are shiny, brown, ellipsoid and 0.25 cm long (WDNR). Reed canary grass reproduces both by seed and creeping rhizomes (WDNR). Most early shoots arise from rhizomes (Evans and Ely 1941). It also produces new shoots at culm nodes (Miller et al. 2008b). 33 ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCES: Reed canary grass is adapted to a wide range of extremes of soil moisture (Galatowitsch et al. 1999) and is present throughout North America (USDA). It tolerates many hydrological conditions thriving where there are frequent fluctuations in water level, particularly where there is long, early flooding in combination with other disturbances (Galatowitsch et al. 1999, Kercher and Zedler 2004b, Kercher et al. 2007). Reed canary grass shows optimal growth on fertile, moist organic soil in full sunlight; however, it can also grow on dry soils in upland habitat or in partial shade (WDNR). The growth of reed canary grass is accelerated by disturbance and increased levels of nitrogen (Kercher and Zedler 2004a, Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2005, Green and Galatowitsch 2002). High annual seed yields are common (Lavergne and Molofsky 2004). Seeds ripen in June, and are capable of germination immediately after ripening with no dormancy requirement (WDNR, Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Reed canary grass is able to form highly productive monocultures using this strategy. Seeds germinate best in moist soils (Lavergne and Molofsky 2004). Reed canary grass is one of the first plants to develop leafy shoots in spring; it has a second growth spurt in fall (WDNR, Evans and Ely 1941). Following initial shoot development in spring, its rhizome biomass develops very rapidly in a dense belowground mat (Evans and Ely 1941). Rhizomes grow near the surface filling rhizosphere gaps and extending the area it occupies with new shoots from the rhizomes (Evans and Ely 1941). Reed canary grass outcompete other species for light in spring, then supports that growth by obtaining nutrients with its extended rhizomes (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2005). CULTURAL USE: Reed canary grass has been an important cultivated forage grass in northern temperate regions for approximately 200 years (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). The Eurasian type has been selected because of its vigor, and has been planted in the U.S. for forage and erosion control since the 1800s (WDNR, Lavergne and Molofsky 2004). Reed canary grass is also grown for silage and grass fodder for cattle (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Today it is still being planted for livestock, and on steep slopes of ponds and created wetlands (Kading et al. 1990, WDNR). The grass is used for restoration of waters and degraded soils, as well as wastewater treatment (Lavergne and Molofsky 2004). Reed canary grass is a source of biofuel (requiring an excessive heating and drying period) and biogas (Burval 1997, Geber 2002, Lamptey et al. 2003). In northern Europe it has been used in the pulp and paper industry (Finell et al. 2002). MANAGEMENT IN RESTORATION SITES: The aggressive nature of reed canary grass makes it a problematic invasive plant in many wetlands and disturbed habitats. Reed canary grass is capable of invading many types of wetlands including: marshes, wet prairies, sedge meadows, fens, stream banks, seasonal wet areas, and disturbed areas (WDNR). Growth of reed canary grass is accelerated in recently disturbed areas and it frequently becomes monotypic (Kercher and Zedler 2004a, WDNR). Reed canary grass reduces native plant growth (Green and Galatowitsch 2002) by quickly producing a aboveground biomass early in the season, then spreading rapidly belowground (Adams and Galatowitsch 2005). Reed canary grass then decreases species richness and diversity (Kercher et al. 2004a, c). 34 When grown vigorously on stream banks, reed canary grass increases sediment deposits, which limits water circulation. In wet sedge meadows, this also decreases the soil organic content and microstructure (Lavergne and Molofsky 2004). Reed canary grass exhibits plastic growth strategies depending upon environmental conditions including anoxia (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). Height, size and shape are not necessarily correlated with geographic distribution (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Since Eurasian and North American types cannot be readily distinguished, more genetic information is needed to determine if planted stocks for forage and erosion control are contributing to invasion (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). Reed canary grass control measures are costly (Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Multiple methods exist to control it, however entirely effective control methods are unknown. Some mechanical methods include covering with a mat to block sunlight, burning, mowing, discing or plowing (Derr 2008, WDNR). Some chemical control measures include use of glyphosate in aquatic habitat, or DaplonTM or Trichloroacetate (TCA)TM in non-aquatic habitat (WDNR). Burning has not been shown to be effective in reducing aboveground biomass, though it did reduce seed bank (Adams and Galatowitsch 2008). Fire is not very productive in helping native species reinvade, and reed canary grass rapidly recolonizes (Foster and Wetzel 2005). Herbicide has been shown to reduce reed canary grass for a short time if applied appropriately (Adams and Galatowitsch 2006, Foster and Wetzel 2005). Additional techniques such as planting cover crops and adding sawdust amendments to reduce light (Iannone and Galatowitsch 2008), and the use of new types of herbicides (Healy 2009) have been tried with limited results. Management efforts should be concentrated during early stages of reed canary grass establishment (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2005). Strategies that mimic natural disturbances such as fire or flooding will likely not be effective (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). LITERATURE CITED: Adams, C. R., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2005. Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): Rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience 12:569-573. Adams, C. R., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the effectiveness of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14:441-451. Apfelbaum, S. I., and C. E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Natural Areas Journal 7:69-74. Burvall, J. 1997. Influence of harvest time and soil type on fuel quality in reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Biomass and Bioenergy 12:149-154. Derr, J. F. 2008. Common Reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:12-16. Evans, M. W., and J. E. Ely. 1941. Growth Habits of Reed Canary Grass. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 33:1017-1027. Finell, M., C. Nilsson, R. Olsson, R. Agnemo, and S. Svensson. 2002. Briquetting of fractionated reed canary-grass for pulp production. Industrial Crops and Products 16:185-192. Foster, R. D., and P. R. Wetzel. 2005. Invading monotypic stands of Phalaris arundinacea: A test of fire, herbicide, and woody and herbaceous native plant groups. Restoration Ecology 13:318-324. 35 Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733-755. Geber, U. 2002. Cutting frequency and stubble height of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.): influence on quality and quantity of biomass for biogas production. Grass and Forage Science 57:389-394. Green, E. K., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2002. Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:134-144. Healy, M.T. 2009. Adaptive restoration of wetlands dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea): a case study for integrating research with land care and restoration. M.S. Thesis. Nelson Institute. University of Wisconsin – Madison. Herr-Turoff, A., and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Does wet prairie vegetation retain more nitrogen with or without Phalaris arundinacea invasion? Plant and Soil 277:19-34. Kading, H., G. Weise, W. Kreil, and K. D. Robowsky. 1990. The forage quality of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L) at grassland sites. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 34:497-500. Kercher, S. M., A. Herr-Turoff, and J B. Zedler. 2007. Understanding invasion as a process: The case of Phalaris arundinacea in wet prairies. Biological Invasions 9:657-665. Kercher, S. M., and J. B. Zedler. 2004a. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455-464. Kercher, S. M., and J. B. Zedler. 2004b. Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aquatic Botany 80:89-102. Kercher, S.M., Q.J. Carpenter, and J.B. Zedler. 2004c. Interrelationships of hydrologic disturbance, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), and native plants in Wisconsin wet meadows. Natural Areas Journal 24:316-325. Lamptey, J. N. L., R. T. Plumb, and M. W. Shaw. 2003. Interactions between the Grasses Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sinensis and Echinochloa crus-galli, and Barley and Cereal Yellow Dwarf Viruses. Journal of Phytopathology-Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 151:463-468. Landstrom, S., L. Lomakka, and S. Anderson. 1996. Harvest in spring improves yield and quality of reed canary grass as a bioenergy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy 11:333-341. Lavergne, S., and J. Molofsky. 2004. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) as a biological model in the study of plant invasions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:415-429. Miller, T. W., L. P. Martin, and C. B. MacConnell. 2008b. Managing reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) to aid in revegetation of riparian buffers. Weed Technology 22:507-513. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). ―Phalaris arundinacea‖. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. October 2009. < http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=phar3>. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). ―Reed Canary Grass Factsheet‖. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 2006. Available online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/floramw/species/phalarun.htm>. 36 Supplementary references from Healy (2008): Adams, C. R., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2006. Increasing the effectiveness of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) control in wet meadow restorations. Restoration Ecology 14:441-451. Basil V. Iannone Iii, S. M. G. 2008. Altering Light and Soil N to Limit Phalaris arundinacea Reinvasion in Sedge Meadow Restorations. Restoration Ecology 16:689-701. Berg, T. 1982. Seed dormancy in local populations Of Phalaris arundinacea L. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 32:405-409. Craft, C., K. Krull, and S. Graham. 2007. Ecological indicators of nutrient enrichment, freshwater wetlands, Midwestern United States (US). Ecological Indicators 7:733-750. Geber, U. 2000. Nutrient removal by grasses irrigated with wastewater and nitrogen balance for reed canarygrass. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:398-406. Geber, U. 2002. Cutting frequency and stubble height of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.): influence on quality and quantity of biomass for biogas production. Grass and Forage Science 57:389-394. Green, E. K., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea and Typha x glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 79:170- 178. Herr-Turoff, A., and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Does morphological plasticity of the Phalaris arundinacea canopy increase invasiveness? Plant Ecology 193:265-277. Howe, H. F. 1995. Succession and fire season in experimental prairie plantings. Ecology 76:1917- 1925. Howe, H. F. 2000. Grass response to seasonal burns in experimental plantings. Journal Of Range Management 53:437-441. Johnson, D. A., A. F. Rayment, and E. Donefer. 1976. Nutritive evaluation of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 56:838-838. Kellogg, C. H., and S. D. Bridgham. 2004. Disturbance, herbivory, and propagule dispersal control dominance of an invasive grass. Biological Invasions 6:319-329. Kilbride, K. M. a. F. L. P. 1999. Integrated pest management to control reed canarygrass in seasonal wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:292-297. Kim, K. D., K. Ewing, and D. E. Giblin. 2006. Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) with live willow stakes: A density-dependent response. Ecological Engineering 27:219-227. Klimesova, J. 1994. The effects of timing and duration of floods on growth of young plants of Phalaris arundinacea L And Urtica dioica L - an experimental study. Aquatic Botany 48:21-29. Larsson, S. 2006. Supply curves of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in Västerbotten County, northern Sweden, under different EU subsidy schemes. Biomass and Bioenergy 30:28-37. Larsson, S. H., M. Thyrel, P. Geladi, and T. A. Lestander. 2008. High quality biofuel pellet production from pre-compacted low density raw materials. Bioresource Technology 99:7176-7182. 37 Lavergne, S., and J. Molofsky. 2007. From the Cover: Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:3883-3888. Lefor, M. W. 1987. Phalaris arundinacea L (Reed Canary Grass - Gramineae) As A Hydrophyte In Essex, Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management 11:771-773. Leger, E. A. 2008. The adaptive value of remnant native plants in invaded communities: an example from the Great Basin. Ecological Applications 18:1226-1235. Lindig-Cisneros, R., and J. B. Zedler. 2002b. Relationships between canopy complexity and germination microsites for Phalaris arundinacea L. Oecologia 133:159-167. Morrison, S. L., and J. Molofsky. 1998. Effects of genotypes, soil moisture, and competition on the growth of an invasive grass, Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass). Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 76:1939-1946. Morrison, S. L., and J. Molofsky. 1999. Environmental and genetic effects on the early survival and growth of the invasive grass Phalaris arundinacea. Canadian Journal of Botany- Revue Canadienne De Botanique 77:1447-1453. Paveglio, F. L., and K. M. Kilbride. 2000. Response of vegetation to control of reed canarygrass in seasonally managed wetlands of southwestern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:730-740. Perkins, T. E., and M. V. Wilson. 2005. The impacts of Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) invasion on wetland plant richness in the Oregon Coast Range, USA depend on beavers. Biological Conservation 124:291-295. Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 15:618-627. Relyea, R.A. 2005. The leathal impact of roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications 15:1118-1124. Vymazal, J., and L. Kropfelova. 2005. Growth of Phragmites australis and Phalaris arundinacea in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic. Ecological Engineering 25:606-621. Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group. 2009. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners and Restoration Professionals. Available online. <http://www.ipaw.org/invaders/reed_canary_grass/RCG- management.pdf> 38 Part 2. Meadow Vegetation Contributed by James Doherty, edited by Joy Zedler Photos by Ray Barnes, taken during the 2009 vegetation survey. 39 Introduction Baseline knowledge about the composition and relative abundance of species in a plant community is required to formulate relevant research questions, restoration strategies, and management objectives. In this project, our objective in sampling the meadow was to provide a ―snapshot‖ of existing vegetation to guide the recommendations in this report and basic management activities at GRPO. Below, we provide data on the frequency and abundance of • target species (the culturally significant species explicitly mentioned in the project goals and species profiles above), • common species (dominant species have the potential to strongly influence community structure and function), and • nuisance species (invasive and weed species that should be monitored and removed if they appear to suppress other species). The data presented below, and in the accompanying appendices, will serve as a starting point for regular vegetation monitoring surveys at the GRPO meadow. Our approach was to sample 1-meter-square quadrats in a regular grid across the entire meadow, excluding areas where trees were present. Future monitoring efforts can be scaled up or down according to resource availability and the concerns of managers, but each successive survey can, and should, be refined by the information gained in previous surveys. Methods From July 5th to July 7th 2009, Deb Pomroy (Assistant Scientist, Olga Lakela Herbarium, University of Minnesota-Duluth) inventoried the meadow flora, recording all plant species she encountered. Pomroy collected specimens of taxa that were not readily identifiable and Ray Barnes also photographed such species. Pomroy later used the specimens and photographs to complete identification to the greatest possible taxonomic resolution (all taxa listed in Appendix 1). The floral inventory survey augmented the quadrat-based sampling described below. From July 6th to July 9th 2009, James Doherty and Brandon Seitz established a 10 x 10-m sampling grid by setting flags 10 m apart along the road adjacent to the meadow, then walking a perpendicular line into the site and setting flags 10 m apart along the way. Seitz used a Brunton compass mounted on a tripod to keep Doherty on a consistent bearing. Doherty used a Sonin electronic distance-measuring tool (or measuring tape when lines of sight were obscured) to place flags at proper distance intervals from the road. In total, the grid had 202 points. At each point, Brandon Seitz used a high-precision Trimble GeoExplorer Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine position and elevation. The GPS data were post-corrected and quality-assured by Seitz. At each of the 202 points, Doherty recorded the presence and cover of species within a 1x1-m quadrat, with no stipulation that plants be rooted inside the quadrat. Doherty recorded abundance using four classes: high (species covering 76-100% of the plot), medium (species covering 51-75% of the plot), low (species covering 25-50% of the plot), and lower (species covering about 20-25% of the plot). 40 Cover was estimated as the percent area of the quadrat where plants would block vertical transmission of light to the soil. The cover of understory leaves (beneath the top layer of vegetation) were assessed independently, thus, multi-layered vegetation could have total cover >100%. Species over 20% cover were identified and recorded as present, but species under 20% cover were not recorded because rare species make up the numerical majority of most plant communities, and their identification and cover-estimation adds considerable time to sampling. Species of special interest were always recorded as present, regardless of cover, to provide more information about their populations. Species of interest for restoration were: northern sweetgrass (Hierochloe hirta), sunchoke (Helianthus tuberosa), caraway (Carum carvi), wild chives (Allium sibiricum), Greene‘s rush (Juncus greenei), Vasey‘s rush (Juncus vaseyi), and green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens; which often co-occurred with sweetgrass in the field). Species of interest for potential eradication were: cow vetch (Vicia cracca), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), smooth brome (Bromus inermus), and tree and shrub species that might hinder restoration to an open, fire-dominated grassland. To ensure that the cover estimation was repeatable, Doherty, Seitz, Pomroy and Barnes conducted the first 19 plots as a team. After discussing the species that all thought had >25% cover, they independently assigned each species a cover ranking and then stated their estimates in tandem until they reached consensus on the cover class. The remaining plots were sampled by Doherty. At the end of each sampling day (July 6, 7, 8, and 9), Doherty re-sampled the first plot that he had sampled that day, checking for consistent cover class assignments. On the rare occasion when he differed by a cover class for a species, he used the second-sample data. As needed during sampling, Pomroy and Seitz helped Doherty identify unknowns (to genus, if not to species). 41 Results Elevation ranged from approximately 183 m to 192 m (Universal Transverse Mercator) across the meadow, with topographic heterogeneity including depressions and a general slope toward Lake Superior (Figure 1.1). Across all points taken, the mean and standard deviation associated with vertical precision was 0.16 ± 0.12 m with a range of 0.1 – 0.9 m, and for horizontal precision 0.13 ± 0.07 m with a range of 0.1 – 0.5 m; precision is shown by point in Appendix 2. Figure 1.1. Map of elevations of the GRPO meadow performed with ArcMap GIS software. Elevation classes were forced, such that breaks occurred at whole-meter intervals. Note that initial sampling used a 5-m grid. This was later changed to a 10-m grid in order to ensure completion in the amount of time remaining. 42 Pomroy identified 108 taxa in the meadow, and Doherty encountered 86 of those taxa within the 202 sampled plots (sampled plots shown in Appendix 3). Species differed in their mean elevation and in the range of elevations where they occurred (Figure 1.2 and 1.3). Juncus greenei Lotus corniculatus Eurybia macrophylla Salix sp. Equisetum arvense Epilobium angustifolium Solidago gigantea Prenanthes alba Ranunculus acris Cornus sericea Mertensia paniculata Poa pratensis Carum carvi Taraxicum officianale Heracleum lanatum Fragaria virginiana Rubus ideaus Trifolium hydbridum Agropyron repens Calamagrostis canadensis Phleum pratense Agrimonia striata Thalictrum dioicum Rubus pubescens Trifolium pratense Vicia cracca Bromus inermis Rosa blanda Doellingeria umbellata Vicia americana Solidago canadensis 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Elevation (m) Figure 1.2. Mean elevation of species occurring in more than 10 sampled plots. Error bars = standard deviation. 43 Hierochloe hirta = odorata Scirpus atrovirens Populus tremuloides Juncus greenei Cornus sericea Helianthus tuberosus Cornus sp. Picea sp. Populus balsamifera Cornus rugosa Carum carvi Phalaris arundinaceae Agropyron repens Betula papyrifera Vicia cracca Cirsium arvense Bromus inermis 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 Elevation (m) Figure 1.3. Mean elevation of “species of interest” in sampled plots. Error bars indicate standard deviation. The above summaries of vegetation are complemented by maps showing the distribution and abundances of select species within the meadow (Appendices 4, 5, and 6). Mean cover (visually estimated in coarse cover classes) was much more evenly distributed among species than was frequency (Table 1). Typical native plant communities have far fewer dominants than rare species, but high evenness may be an artifact of sampling only relatively abundant species (those with cover >20%). The most commonly occurring species, the native Rosa blanda, was found in half of the plots sampled in this meadow. The exotic Poa pratensis was a close second. The species with the highest mean cover, as estimated by cover classes, was Lotus corniculatus, an invasive, exotic, weedy species. The other commonly occurring species that was classified as an invasive, exotic, weedy species was Bromus inermis, which was already recognized as a species of concern, though many native species coexist with it in this site. 44 Table 1. Frequency, mean cover (from cover class midpoints), and invasive/exotic/weed status of 30 species occurring in >10 of the 202 sampled plots. Three infrequent species are also listed as unwanted; as they have potential to become invasive or weedy at GRPO. Common species Frequency Mean Listed as Listed as Listed as (# of plots cover invasive by exotic by weedy by occupied) (%) MN-DNR USDA USDA Rosa blanda 100 39 N N N Poa pratensis 85 30 N Y Y Equisetum arvense 77 30 N N Y Carum carvi 71 31 N Y Y Phleum pratense 65 32 N Y Y Ranunculus acris 60 24 N Y Y Vicia Americana 49 25 N N N Rubus pubescens 44 42 N N N Lotus corniculatus 43 47 Y Y Y Calamagrostis canadensis 42 37 N N N Fragaria virginiana 35 29 N N Y Solidago gigantean 34 26 N N N Cornus sericea 31 31 N N N Rubus idaeus 31 32 N Y N Bromus inermis 29 35 Y Y Y Thalicrum dioicum 27 36 N N N Agropyron repens 26 30 N Y Y Doellingeria umbellata 22 25 N N N Trifolium pratense 22 33 N Y N Taraxacum officinale 20 24 N Y Y Solidago canadensis 18 32 N N Y Vicia cracca 18 20 Y Y N Epilobium angustifolium 17 26 N N Y Heracleum lanatum 17 30 N N Y Mertensia paniculata 17 33 N N N Eurybia macrophylla 16 31 N N N Agrimonia striata 14 33 N N N Juncus (cf.) greenei 14 41 N N N Prenanthes alba 13 26 N N N Trifolium hybridum 11 28 N Y N Infrequent unwanted spp. Cirsium arvense 7 23 Y Y Y Phalaris arundinacea 2 3 Y Y Y Hieraceum aurantiacum 1 23 Y Y Y 45 Discussion The GRPO meadow vegetation is a novel collection of native (19 common spp.) and nonnative (11 common spp.) plants, most of which are widespread in distribution throughout the meadow. The unique composition of the meadow may be owed to its long history of human use, and is not necessarily an obstacle to future restoration and management there (one target species, caraway, is itself exotic). Long-term monitoring should indicate whether or not co-existence between native and non-native species is sustainable. If exotic or weedy species increase in frequency and abundance across sampling periods (based on monitoring data), or if such species are already relatively common in the site, managers should take action to remove them. In particular this survey indicates that several invasive species of potential concern (Lotus corniculatus, Ranunculus acris, Bromus inermus, and others) and several abundant shrub species that might be removed if monitoring data indicate shrub encroachment. Based on this survey, the area with sweetgrass and green bulrush on the upper slope is likely an area of groundwater seepage with low nutrients and moist soil. That environment may favor sweetgrass, and, despite co-occurring in only two quadrats, sweetgrass and green bulrush generally seem to occur near each other (see species maps in Appendix 4). In future efforts to restore sweetgrass, green bulrush could potentially be used as an indicator or facilitator or sweetgrass, along with Greene‘s rush and Vasey‘s rush. Finally, there are several ways in which future monitoring efforts could build on the survey discussed above or adapt survey methods to fit resource constraints: • Our sampling points, which were recorded with GPS, should be re-used to avoid confounding changes in vegetation over time with change in sampling location, and also to save time and effort • The survey can be target-species-centric. We adjusted sampling for a subset of species (i.e., we always recorded target species presence regardless of whether or not it had >20% cover in the plot). The same approach can be used to focus data-collection on invasive or undesired species in-lieu of, or in addition to, a full survey of the vegetation. • More repeatable measures of vegetation could be used. We opted to assess the cover of understory (under-canopy) species, which added some effort and complication to the cover estimation process. A more straight-forward approach would be to estimate cover from above the herbaceous canopy and assign a cover for each species from 0-100% or with cover classes, such as: 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-100%. • Sampling could be scaled down as needed. Any monitoring is better than no monitoring. In a given year it may only be possible to re-visit the GPS points where target species or invasive species were present in 2009 and assess presence-absence. Still, that effort would answer a basic question: is that species‘ population fairly persistent? Thus, the vegetation survey above does not need to be repeated exactly to generate useful monitoring data. The sampling methods used in 2009 could be changed to improve the quality or utility of monitoring data collected, and still allow GRPO managers to track changes in vegetation over time. 46 Part 3. Adaptive Restoration and Management Plans Satellite image of GRPO meadow. Provided by Brandon Seitz, NPS. 47 Contents of Part 3 Introduction A broad view of restoration The restoration goals Management opportunities and constraints Adaptive restoration of four culturally-important species Monitoring to sustain the meadow vegetation - Meadow composition - Caraway monitoring and management - Reed canary grass eradication - Smooth brome control Phase 1: Garden experiments Caraway Experiment 1.1: Test of caraway‘s effect on other target species Chives Experiment 1.2: Test of chives‘ light limitation Sunchoke Experiment 1.3.1: Test of sunchoke light limitation Experiment 1.3.2: Test of sunchoke nutrient limitation Sweetgrass Experiment 1.4.1: Test of sweetgrass seedling establishment Experiment 1.4.2: Test of sweetgrass facilitation by Greene‘s rush Phase 2: Meadow-edge experiments Experiment 2.1: Test of chives and sunchoke light limitation Phase 3: Adaptive restoration within the meadow Experiment 3.1: Test of young sunchoke requirement for light Experiment 3.2: Comparison of methods to expand the existing sweetgrass population Experiment 3.3: Test of sweetgrass establishment following tree removal Experiment 3.4: Test of sweetgrass facilitation by Greene‘s rush Phase 4: Adaptive management within the meadow Experiment 4.1: Comparison of caraway harvest methods Experiment 4.2: Comparison of site-scale management activities Suggested future study: Managing meadow drainage Summary of experiments by phase and priority 48 Discussion and Recommendations Landscape restoration - Multifunctionality - Heterogeneity of spatial pattern - Restore and sustain biodiversity of the existing meadow vegetation Summary of recommendations for monitoring and restoration Highlighting ecological functions: Education and community involvement References cited 49 Introduction This document lays out an adaptive restoration process and plan for restoring four culturally- important plant species to a 3.5-acre meadow at Grand Portage National Monument, northeastern Minnesota. The four culturally-important species are sweetgrass (Hierochloe hirta), sunchokes (a.k.a. jerusalem artichoke; Helianthus tuberosus), chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum), and caraway (Carum carvi). Two additional native plant species might assist sweetgrass restoration; these are Greene‘s rush (Juncus greenei) and Vasey‘s rush (Juncus vaseyi). Because restoration efforts will be hindered by unwanted aggressive plants that are already present in the meadow, the plan also addresses two invasive species; these are smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Of these, the more widespread invader is smooth brome. This grass spreads both by seed and aggressive rhizomes. The rhizomes establish early in the growing season and allow it to out- compete native grasses (USDA). Relevant literature on each of the above eight species is summarized in Part 1, ―Species Profiles.‖ Of the four culturally-important species, sweetgrass is highly valued for its use in ceremonies and crafts, while chives, caraway and sunchokes are edible. Sweetgrass is widely used by American Indians as incense for ceremonies and many medicinal purposes including the treatment of coughs, sore throats, chafing, venereal infections, vaginal bleeding, and to expel afterbirth (Foster 2000). Additional uses include perfume, hair wash, bedding, and basketry (USDA). Cultivated chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum) and wild chives (var. sibiricum) are herbs that have been grown widely for use in flavoring food, medicine, religious ceremonies and ornamentation (Fenwick and Hanley 1985), as well as appetite stimulation and digestive aid (USDA). The Ojibwe and Sioux people used chives in their native wild rice dishes, called ―Mahnomem‖ (Ojibwe name for wild rice). Caraway is a spice with a long history of use as a household remedy, especially in treating digestive complaints. Crushed seeds can be brewed into teas to soothe digestion via its antispasmodic properties and its carminative action, which relieves bloating. It is often added to laxative medicines to prevent griping pain. The edible seeds have long been used to flavor sweet and savory foods. The seeds are high in fat and protein (Plants for a Future 1996). Sunchokes (Jerusalem artichoke) is a staple that is among the oldest cultivated crops in North America (first documented use in 1605). Sunchokes appear to have originated in Canada, where its historical distribution was broader than at present. Its center of origin is difficult to trace because it was highly cultivated for perhaps centuries and because it is not easy to track genetically (Kays and Nottingham 2008). 50 A broad view of restoration Over recent decades, ecological restoration goals have evolved from specific to broad targets as practitioners and scientists developed deeper understanding of the challenges involved in aiming for specific ―historical states.‖ In the United States, the public land surveys of the mid- 1800s offered quantitative data that were used as community-composition targets for woody vegetation at the time of European settlement. But these early records were time-specific and not representative of the full range of dynamics that native vegetation experience (Pickett and Parker 1994). The records also focused on trees, making it difficult to set targets for the herbaceous and animal components of biotic communities. Furthermore, the long time periods needed to reproduce forests and savannas and the difficulty of mimicking either the composition or size distributions indicated by the records made the ―pre-settlement model‖ unattractive or unsuitable for many projects. Pre-settlement composition is also an inadequate target for those who aim to restore ecosystem services, such as flood abatement or carbon sequestration. And because the Clean Water Act of the early 1970s recognized the water-quality-improvement services of wetlands, the mitigation of lost wetland area quickly focused on rapid restoration of non-woody vegetation in ponds, marshes, and wet meadows. Meanwhile, in Europe, a different type of restoration effort emerged, namely, the restoration of cultural landscapes with culturally-valuable species. In Switzerland, for example, Andreas Gigon (personal communication while a guest speaker at UW; see also Gigon and Langenauer 1998) advocated the conservation and restoration of Sibirian iris to ensure that historic settlements—both human structures and associated vegetation—would be sustained for their heritage value. GRPO‘s interest in conserving the cultural history and associated culturally- important plant species is a similar approach. The restoration goals The restoration goals for this project at Grand Portage National Monument (GRPO) focus on culturally-valuable species, with additional elements of composition- and ecosystem-service- based targets. Each of the four culturally-important targets is valued for a different purpose (ceremonial and craft usage, herb, spice, and staple). Their restoration to GRPO is not proposed as garden plots of plantations but re-incorporation into an existing vegetated meadow, which in itself provides a culturally-important service as the historical site of portaging, which gives the monument its name. Other ecosystem services of the meadow likely include groundwater conservation, erosion control, and sequestration of carbon in the soil. This unique combination of targets is proposed for a unique site, namely a 3.5-acre meadow that is neither a garden nor a wildland; instead, the restoration site has been modified by humans for centuries, dating back to the earliest explorers and fur traders. Some of the valued species are still present in the meadow. One (caraway) is weedy and the others are rare. The restoration of these four culturally-important species is entirely consistent with the mission of Grand Portage National Monument, which ―protects, commemorates, and interprets a 51 reconstructed fur depot of the North West Company, a rendezvous site for international commerce and canoe route for transcontinental exploration, Native heritage, natural scene and history of cross cultural contact and accommodation between traders, Ojibwa and other participants in the fur trade‖ (Grand Portage National Monument/Minnesota: Final General Monument Plan/Environmental Impact Statement - http://www.nps.gov/grpo/parkmgmt/upload/GRPOGMP.PDF). Management opportunities and constraints The GRPO staff has indicated willingness to undertake restoration experimentally, as well as to use fire, mowing, and herbicides in managing the meadow. Volunteers could be engaged to grow plants in pots and manage weeds. Experiments in gardens and in the meadow would, however, require continual maintenance and intensive care. The benefit would be improved understanding of conditions suitable for each species‘ growth. The costs would be space and time devoted to growing plants under experimental conditions. In the meadow, the tending of field experiments might require mowed trails to allow data collection in experimental plots. Because sweetgrass is a desirable species, plants needed to be protected until they can sustain harvesting. We recommend an education program, along with garden and meadow experimentation to ensure that local people become interested in the project and that visitors become aware of efforts to sustain culturally important species. GRPO could use signs, displays within the visitor center, and possibly a recipe book that indicates how chives, sunchokes and caraway have been used historically and can be used again in a sustainable manner. Without interest by local people in the culturally important species, any plan to sustain them in the meadow could fail. Suggestions for an outreach program appear at the end of this plan. 52 Adaptive restoration of four culturally-important species This adaptive restoration plan aims to manage the existing population of caraway and restore and sustain populations of the rare chives, sunchokes, and sweetgrass in the GRPO meadow. Caraway needs to be managed so it does not become overly abundant, and the three rare species need to be augmented to achieve sustainable populations. We recommend an adaptive approach, because there are several unknowns that need to be known in order to sustain these four species at desired levels. The following unknowns can be answered via experimentation in the garden, meadow edge, and meadow: • Caraway: When would caraway need to be controlled? How could caraway seeds be harvested to benefit GRPO and local people without hindering restoration efforts? • Chives: How much light is needed for plantings to survive and reproduce? • Sunchokes: Does light limit growth of young sunchokes? Would nutrient addition or mowing facilitate restoration of sunchokes? • Sweetgrass: How can seeds be germinated in order to grow more genotypes for subsequent vegetative propagation? Which environmental and biotic factors restrict the expansion of existing patches? Where and how can GRPO establish new patches in the meadow? Below we outline our recommendations for monitoring the meadow vegetation and establishing four phases of experimentation. The monitoring component will be developed primarily on the basis of information presented in Part 2 of this report. The experiments will be developed by indicating: the hypothesis being tested and the reason it should be tested, the priority for conducting the experiment, factors that should be constant, factors to be varied (i.e., treatments), measures to be taken, methods, and analysis. The four phases of experimentation are: (1) Experimentation in the garden to determine the environmental factors that restrict growth of the three rare species and to provide propagules for restoration, followed by, (2) Experimentation at the meadow edge to serve as further tests of pant growth, demonstration exhibits, and plots that could sustain some level of harvesting, (3) Experimental restoration of three rare species in the meadow, and (4) Experimental harvest of caraway and management at the site scale. We recommend that monitoring and experimentation be overseen by an ―Adaptive Restoration Task Force‖ (hereafter, Task Force), which would supervise data collection, interpret and archive the data, and use the information to guide the overall restoration effort at GRPO. We propose that GRPO begin by monitoring the meadow vegetation by routinely resampling the plots established by James Doherty in 2009. Next, we propose the testing of factors that influence each species using experimental plantings in the garden. A second phase of experimental plantings is 53 proposed for the meadow edge, where species that require high light conditions could be established to examine their growth requirements and illustrate the outcomes for staff, as well as visitors. The plots with the most vigorous growth could then be harvested and used for more extensive plantings. A third phase of experiments would then test reintroduction and reestablishment procedures within the meadow. Finally, a fourth phase of experiments would help guide eventual management of individual target species by testing the effect of ethnobotanical use and eventual management of the site by comparing the effect of large-scale management strategies on the vegetation as a whole. If the experiments are undertaken in sequence, over several years, the Task Force would need to meet semi-annually to guide the collection of data, interpret the findings, and decide how to use the findings from each phase to guide the next. For example, results from the garden would indicate how best to set up the meadow-edge phase, and results from the meadow-edge would help guide subsequent, larger-scale experimental plantings. Monitoring to sustain the meadow vegetation - Meadow composition We recommend regular resampling of the 202 plots (each 1 m2) that were sampled in 2009 by James Doherty and Deb Pomroy. To track changes in the vegetation, annual sampling can focus on target species, with special attention to three weedy species (caraway, smooth brome, and reed canary grass) and three rare species (chives, sunchokes and sweetgrass). Volunteers might be easily trained to identify these six species, and perhaps count of the number of other species (without identifying them all). More detailed sampling of every species in every plot could be done at 5-yr intervals by expert botanists. The 2009 vegetation sample would serve as the reference point for subsequent expansion of invasive species (annually) and the contraction of native species distributions and overall status of biodiversity (every 5 years). GRPO staff could use GPS equipment or install stakes or flags as visible markers for both the 202 permanent plots and locations of invasive species and experimental plots. If visible markers are placed during the first treatment in spring, subsequent measurements of progress would be simplified. At a minimum, weedy species should be assessed once in mid-season to allow mid-course correction of weed-control measures. A second measurement near the end of the growing season would help the Task Force decide on management approaches for the next spring. Annual data summaries will allow the Task Force to track the abundances of each of the four culturally important species and unwanted invasive plants. The patterns of change would then inform the restoration process. For example, if the caraway population were to expand for several successive years, the Task Force would want to consider control measures, and if invasive species rapidly increase their populations at the expense of native species, the Task Force could decide when and how to take action. At the same time, annual information on target species distributions will help the Task Force judge the effectiveness of restoration actions. While each experiment that we propose includes procedures for assessment of outcomes of alternative restoration approaches, the meadow monitoring will indicate whether reintroduced species are spreading beyond the experimental plantings. Expansion would be a strong indicator that restoration is effective. The 54 Task Force could then adjust the restoration program or increase effort to employ the most effective approach more extensively. Chives, sunchokes and sweetgrass would be considered ―restored to the meadow‖ when populations are judged to be ―sustained.‖ That judgment will require data for several successive years across variable weather conditions (dry years and wet years). It will also require data that show whether invasive species are under control (populations being reduced and any new patches able to be eradicated). If monitoring data indicate that the initial methods are not providing the desired outcomes (i.e., rare species are not sustained and/or invasive species are not controlled), the Task Force could adapt the management plan and apply more aggressive measures (e.g., more plantings in a wider variety of environmental conditions). - Caraway monitoring and management We recommend that caraway be monitored--and managed if it shows signs of becoming too abundant, i.e., expanding to the detriment of other culturally important species or desired native plants. If the long-term monitoring of meadow vegetation indicates a consistently expanding population both in area and cover, then GRPO staff should be ready with control measures. Because this species is short-lived or biennial, seed-collection could be used to deplete the seed bank; the proposed caraway-harvest experiment in Phase 4, below, lays out a way to assess the effectiveness/sustainability of such harvest-based controls. The collection of seeds would be feasible if local volunteers were interested in using the seeds in cooking or if seeds could be sold as a ―spice souvenir‖ at the visitor center. However, widespread dissemination of seeds could inadvertently cause invasions elsewhere. An informational label would be needed to explain why caraway might become invasive if seeds are planted in gardens and not managed by clipping inflorescences or weeding outside the garden. More certain, however, would be to provide non-viable seeds for cooking or souvenirs. Finding a way to provide non-viable seeds that are still flavorful, could simultaneously train GRPO personnel in the adaptive approach: Ask which treatment will work, test alternatives, evaluate results, and adopt the most effective treatment (or repeat the process if no treatment provides the desired outcome). A microwave oven could be used to determine what time/temperature setting prevents caraway seed germination while still retaining the characteristic aroma and taste. Adopting the treatment that kills all seed and retains flavor would ensure that customers do not introduce caraway into non-native areas. Testing ways to make seeds nonviable for use as a spice souvenir: Objective: To find time/temperature conditions sufficient to kill caraway seeds while retaining flavor. Volatile flavors could be lost by microwaving seeds at too high a temperature or for too long at a lower temperature. Hypothesis: Some combination of microwaving time and temperature will kill seeds without losing flavor. Priority: Low, because it is not yet clear that the caraway population needs to be controlled by collecting seeds. Constants: Seed harvested from the meadow or from garden plots. Variables: Temperature setting, time that seeds are microwaved. 55 Measure: Count the number of seeds that germinate under each treatment; rank taste among treatments. Method: Microwave the seeds at low vs. high temperature and short vs. long duration (start with 4 treatments, 200 seeds per treatment, 800 seeds total—estimate number per volume and set treatments as tablespoon measures). The four treatments would be low+short, low+long, high+short and high+long. After treatment, have four volunteers taste the results and rank flavor from highest to lowest. Each volunteer would taste the same amount of seeds (quarter teaspoon?) from each treatment. Next, test germination rates of the remaining 400 seeds by placing 25 seeds from a treatment on moist paper toweling folded into a small, shallow, labeled container (e.g., petri dish or jar lid with plastic wrap). Place labeled container under warm, well-lit conditions (e.g., windowsill). Four treatments, each with four replicate containers will result in 16 containers. Randomize positions weekly so that the replicates of a treatment are distributed within the growing space and not confounded by consistently higher light or warmer temperatures. Analysis: Sum the flavor rankings for each treatment to see if any treatment shows a strong loss of taste. Tabulate the number of seeds germinated over a 4-week time period and identify the treatment with the lowest germination rate. Did the difference in temperature suggest a greater effect than the difference in duration? If all treatments are still producing seedlings, higher temperatures or longer durations of microwaving are needed. The Task Force would need to meet to discuss how to repeat the experiment, i.e., which new treatments should be tested to identify lethal conditions. The optimal treatment would kill seeds but not degrade flavor. - Reed canary grass eradication Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is an aggressive invader that will detract from the sustainability of other important species at GRPO. Strains of reed canary grass have been introduced from Europe for livestock forage and streambank erosion control, and the exotic strains tolerate a wide range of hydrological conditions, thrive under frequent flooding, and commonly invade disturbed wetlands (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). Reed canary grass thrives on fertile, moist organic soil in full sunlight, but it also occurs in partially shaded areas and uplands (WDNR). Its growth is accelerated by disturbance and increased levels of nitrogen (Green and Galatowitsch 2002, Kercher and Zedler 2004a, Herr-Turoff and Zedler 2005). We recommend that reed canary grass be eradicated immediately, because it does not yet have a large population at GRPO. If allowed to persist, it will reduce native plant growth (Green and Galatowitsch 2002) by producing aboveground biomass early in the season, then spreading vegetatively belowground (Adams and Galatowitsch 2005). As reed canary grass expands, it decreases native species richness (Kercher et al. 2004c). Due to its ability to outcompete native species, management efforts should be concentrated during early stages of reed canary grass establishment (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2005). Now is the time to aim for eradication. Multiple control methods are available, but none is entirely effective. Mechanical methods include blocking sunlight with a mat or black plastic, burning, mowing, disking or plowing (Derr 2008, WDNR). Chemical control measures include use of glyphosate in aquatic habitat, or 56 DaplonTM or Trichloroacetate (TCA)TM in non-aquatic habitat (WDNR). Herbicide has been shown to reduce reed canary grass for a short time if applied appropriately (Adams and Galatowitsch 2006, Foster and Wetzel 2005, Apfelbaum and Sams 1987). Healy and Zedler (2010) found that sethoxydim (VantageTM) could stunt but not kill reed canary grass. Strategies that mimic natural disturbances such as fire or flooding are unlikely to be effective (Galatowitsch et al. 1999). Due to its small patch size in the GRPO meadow, the entire clone of reed canary grass could be covered with black plastic for 2-3 years. Alternatively, an herbicide (e.g., glysophate, as Round-Up) could be applied selectively to kill the invader. In either case, we recommend a late spring burn to remove the senesced overwintering canopy, which could otherwise puncture the plastic covering or absorb herbicide. The black plastic will ―solarize‖ seedlings or resprouts that could develop if light penetrates tears in the plastic. Multiple years of treatment will be needed to deplete reserves of rhizomes and dormant buds, as well as the seed bank, which will likely persist for several years. Continued monitoring and spot treatment would help managers prevent re- establishment of seedlings. If using herbicide, allow reed canary grass to regrow following control burning; then hand treat it using the glove application technique (plastic glove inside a knit glove soaked in herbicide). This will suppress the reed canary grass stems, but it will not kill seeds or dormant buds belowground. Monitoring will be needed to identify and promptly treat new patches of reed canary grass. Neither solarization nor glyphosate is a selective technique for reed canary grass control (WIRCGWG 2009). A plan will be needed to introduce desired species after treatment is judged to be effective. Aggressive, tall native plants with ample belowground biomass would be most competitive. Sunchokes have these attributes and would be a suitable replacement ―matrix‖ species, adding understory plants to absorb light that passes through the sunchoke canopy. We do not recommend attempting to control reed canary grass using fire, mowing or other methods that would increase light or add nutrients to the meadow. Burning increases light penetration to the soil, which favors reed canary grass growth and expansion. Fire is useful in removing the thatch prior to herbicide application, but used alone, burning cannot control reed canary grass. More information is in the ―Species Profiles‖ document and the Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide (WIRCGWG 2009). - Smooth brome control Smooth brome is highly invasive in the Grand Portage meadow. In the 2009 vegetation survey, it occurred in 29 (~14%) of the 202 surveyed plots. A suitable goal is to eradicate it to allow culturally significant species to thrive in its place. Experimentation could delay treatment and allow further expansion. The methods that decrease growth of smooth brome include clipping, mowing, and chemical application early in spring, it sprouts during cool weather. If it sprouts earlier than other desired species at GRPO, managers could capitalize on this trait by treating smooth brome as soon as it emerges and before other species have emerged. We recommend early mowing to reduce its competitive advantage, and subsequent application of glyphosate to kill resprouts. Due to the wide distribution of smooth brome in the meadow, this would require more resources and increased monitoring of survival, with follow-up hand spraying or glove application. 57 Potential management strategies to eliminate smooth brome as quickly as possible are: Mow and clip the smooth brome in April or as soon as growth begins. Apply glyphosate in spring as a spot-treatment using the glove technique. Be cautious around other species. Repeat clipping, mowing, and herbicide as necessary Replanting following the control of smooth brome could be difficult if allelopathins remain in the soil. Allelopathy is the production and release of certain biochemicals that affect the growth and development of other organisms. Grant and Sallans (1964) observed that smooth brome root extract inhibited root growth in the majority of legumes and its own root structure. It is possible that the decomposing biomass releases allelopathins, but we did not find support for the work of Grant and Sallans (1964). Removing the root system, as discussed in the ―Species Profiles‖ document, would disrupt the surrounding plants and soil across much of the meadow. Therefore, we do not recommend cultivation unless smooth brome cannot be controlled using the above approach. - Other weedy species Three species of potential concern (Canada thistle, birdsfoot trefoil and exotic vetch) could be addressed at the same time as smooth brome. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), from Eurasia, was present in only 7 quadrats and prominent in only 5. Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculata), from Europe, was one of the most common (43 occurrences in 202 quadrats) and abundant (considered dominant in 32 quadrats) species of the meadow. Exotic vetch (Vicia cracca), from Eurasia, had 18 occurrences and was less common and had lower cover than the native (V. americana). V. cracca was considered a dominant in only 3 of the 202 survey quadrats. Because the above species are not yet widespread or widely dominant, their control will be easier now than in the future. Long-term monitoring will help track their distributions and allow the Task Force to decide if control efforts need to increase. Shrubs can also become invasive in meadows, including native shrubs. There are two potentially increasing species in the GRPO meadow: Red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea = C. stolonifera) is a native shrub that can be invasive in wetlands. It occurred 31 times in the 202 quadrats, being prominent in 28 and dominant in 14. A native rose (Rosa blanda) was the most common species in the 202 quadrats (100 occurrences, with prominence in all 100 quadrats and dominance in 69 quadrats. This species is unarmed (prickles only at the base). 58 Without information that indicates increasing occurrences or dominance over time, neither species can be considered invasive at GRPO. The preferred approach would be to track their distributions annually, along with the target species, so the Task Force can evaluate the data and consider the need for management. If shrub cover is shown to be increasing at the expense of herbaceous plant diversity (species richness or evenness of cover), the Task Force could recommend management to reduce woody plant cover. Management tools for shrubs include control burning and/or mowing. Cutting and herbiciding would not likely be necessary unless a new, highly aggressive, exotic shrub were to colonize the site. A caution is that exotic species are continually being introduced to restoration sites and natural areas, dispersed by wind, animals, water, and people, not necessarily in that order. A recent review (Catford et al. 2009) summarizes three general causes of species invasiveness: ―propagule pressure,‖ abiotic and biotic factors. A take-home message is that managers must be on the alert for new invasions of exotic species and prepared to take action upon colonization. Phase 1: Experimentation in the garden Caraway Caraway‘s effect on other species is not well understood. Its canopy is not dense, so it might have little ability to compete for light. On the other hand, it forms a tap root that could sequester belowground resources that would otherwise support other desired species. If this weedy species is shown to expand consistently (for multiple years) in the meadow, it could negatively affect other culturally-important and native plant species at GRPO. A garden experiment would improve understanding of caraway‘s effects on the structure and function of the meadow. Experiment 1.1: Test of caraway’s effect on other target species Hypothesis: Mature caraway plants will reduce growth of rare species. Priority: Low, because the need to manage the species is easily determined by monitoring. Because this is a biennial plant, management could simply involve seed collecting or fall burning before seeds are released. Objective: Test the effect of caraway on each rare species (chives, sunchokes, sweetgrass) to determine if it is necessary to reduce caraway abundance. Each experiment would run two years in order for caraway to reach maturity. Constants: Eighteen plots (each at least 1-m2) with caraway. Six plots for each rare species (i.e., caraway + chives, caraway + sunchokes, caraway + sweetgrass; x6 replicates). If garden space is limited, the sweetgrass test would have priority. Each plot with caraway would receive the same number of seeds, e.g., 200. Variables: Caraway left to grow and caraway pruned (cut to ground level mid-season). Methods. Seed caraway into all 18 plots. Add a uniform number of ramets of the rare species to 6 randomly selected plots per species. Maintain uniform densities of the rare 59 species and measure height (tallest stretched stem/leaf in each plot) and estimate cover (0-25, 25-50, 50-75, and 75-100% cover). In year two, randomly select three of the six plots with the same rare species and prune the caraway (cut to the ground level mid- season before flowering). Measure height and estimate cover of the rare species with and without caraway pruning. Analysis: Compare height and cover of rare species with and without caraway pruned. If rare species grow better where caraway is pruned, caraway could be pruned in the meadow where it co-occurs with rare species. We recommend annual evaluation of the meadow monitoring data for total occurrences and percent cover of caraway. An increase in caraway and decrease in desired species within the same plots will indicate the need for caraway control. Either seed collection or a fall control burn would reduce caraway population expansion, once its soil seed bank is depleted. If the monitoring program indicates that the population of caraway is declining, measures could be taken to preserve the genetic diversity that might be present. Seeds taken when the population is large population could be stratified (refrigerated with moist paper toweling in sealed plastic bags) for use in a future restoration effort, should the Task Force determine that caraway is becoming too rare in the meadow. Seeds could be collected annually to replenish the stratified reserve, as viability will likely decline during storage time. A long-term seed viability experiment would determine if it is necessary to store seeds annually. For such an experiment, keep the older seeds for several years, removing 100 each year to test germination. To build up a seed supply, set aside an area in the garden for at least two years, when he biennial plants would mature and produce seeds for a ―reserve‖ population. If seeds remain viable for multiple years in moist, cold storage, the reserve bank could be replenished less often. It is possible, however, that long-term storage would select for a subset of genotypes. Chives Chives have been present in the garden at GRPO but not in the meadow. In recent years, chives have only been reported in one small patch within an equipment yard. Propagules will need to be grown for transplantation experiments. GRPO‘s Heritage Gardener has cultivated chives in the garden and her experience should guide propagation of the species. Soil in garden plots should be warm and well drained for optimal growth (Davies 1992). Because chives are an ―edge species‖ that does not compete well for light, the garden plots will require weeding (Davies 1992, Organ 1960). A shade-tolerance experiment would inform subsequent efforts to reintroducing chives into the meadow, by suggesting sites for planting chives and management the surrounding vegetation. Experiment 1.2: Test of chives’ light limitation: Hypothesis: Chives grow better in full sunlight than in shade. Priority: High, because the experiment will help guide plantings at the meadow edge while producing the necessary bulbs for transplantation. Objective: Compare growth of chives under three light levels. Constants: Plot or pot size, number of seeds or transplants in each plot or pot, temperature, soil, nutrients and water supply. 60 Variable: Shade, i.e., none, one layer, and two layers of shade cloth. Measure: Growth of plants, assessed nondestructively as height (tallest stretched height in a pot), number of leaves, and flowering (number of flowering stalks) at the end of the growing season. Nurseries supply shade cloth with estimated percent shade; however, for comparison with conditions in the meadow, it would be useful to measure light under each shade cloth treatment using a light meter. Methods: Build frames for plots or use tomato cages to suspend shade cloth about 2 feet above each pot. Assuming that pots will be easier to use, plant one bulb in each 1-ft- dia pot. Randomly assign each pot to a shade-cloth treatment, with 5 pots of chives per treatment. Each pot should have its own cage and shade cloth, and the position of pots would be randomized monthly to ensure independence of experimental units. Assess plant responses as height, number of leaves, and number of flowering stalks per pot. Weight of seeds and bulbs at the end of the experiment would assess differences in reproduction. Retain seeds and bulbs for later introduction to the meadow. Analysis: Compare averages for each response variable to identify the treatment with greatest growth (height, leaf density) and reproduction (seeds and of bulbs). Reproduction potential will be of greatest interest initially, in order to find the conditions that produce the most propagules for transplantation to the meadow edge. Sunchoke Sunchokes are not widely distributed at GRPO. Only 2 occurrences were recorded in the meadow during the 2009 vegetation survey of 202 plots. Sunchokes were considered ―dominant‖ in only one of those 1-m2 plots. Thus, to meet the restoration goals, sunchokes will need to be reintroduced to the meadow in suitable places. Literature indicates that this species is best grown from tubers with 2-3 nodes and at least 3 eyes for each desired plant. It is best to plant in spring or fall at a density of 2-4/m2. Weeding around young plantings aids establishment, but once plants are taller than their neighbors, they should not require weeding. While sunchokes are known to tolerate a variety of growing conditions, they thrive in sandy loam with good fertility. Adding nitrogen and phosphorus should increase the size of the tubers produced and the biomass of the plants. Nutrients supplied to young sunchokes promote the growth of aboveground biomass, while later application of nutrients facilitates the growth of tubers and rhizomes, allowing plants to spread vegetatively (Kays and Nottingham 2008). A meadow experiment could involve nutrient addition, but we caution that broad application of nutrients would likely favor invasive species, particular grasses. It might be wise to grow sunchokes in pots with fertile soil for transplantation to the meadow as competitive individuals. Sunchoke establishment and/or growth might be limited by competitors. A garden experiment could test this hypothesis using GRPO meadow soil. A meadow-edge experiment could identify early-season competitive interactions or rule out early aboveground competition as a limiting factor in sunchoke restoration/expansion. Later, in phase 3, we recommend using information from the garden experiment to decide how and when to mow vegetation in meadow plots where conditions best match those of the existing sunchoke occurrences. 61 Experiment 1.3.1: Test of sunchoke light limitation Hypothesis: Young plants will grow better in full sunlight than in shade. Priority: High, to determine if sunchoke ramets (sprouted tubers) can be produced easily by growing them with ample light at the meadow edge. Measure: Compare height growth and tuber production of sunchoke transplants with three levels of shade, as in the chives garden experiment. Constants: Sprouted tubers (propagated from local stock), pot size, water supply, soil (from the site), amount of N and P added where specified. Variables: Shade cloth absent or present in one layer or two layers. Ramets (sprouted tubers) will differ in size, so measure the wet weight of each tuber before planting and keep track of the starting weight for each pot. Measure: Plant height, flowering, and tuber production at end of growing season. Methods: Build frames to suspend shade cloth or use tomato cages. Plant each pot with one tuber. Add the cage and randomly assign a shade cloth treatment to each pot (5 pots per treatment) and position the pot randomly in the growing space. Ideally, each pot would have its own frame and shade cloth, and the position of pots would be re- randomized monthly to ensure independence of experimental units. Analysis: Compare plant responses as height, flowering, and tuber wet weight. Subtract starting tuber weight from end-of-season weight to calculate tuber production. Initially, tuber production will be the most relevant measure for predicting the potential for future harvesting. Later, plant height will be useful in deciding where to restore the species to the meadow and how to manage surrounding vegetation. Experiment 1.3.2: Test of sunchoke nutrient limitation Hypothesis: Adding nitrogen (N) will increase shoot growth. Alternative hypothesis: If the soil is deficient in phosphorus (P) or rich in calcium (which ties up P), shoot growth will be greatest with both N and P added. Priority: Low, unless ramets grow poorly when given ample light (based on the above experiment). Constants: Tubers (propagated from local stock), pot size, water supply, soil (from the site), amount of N and P added where specified Variables: Nutrients added (N, N+P, and P). Evaluate soil samples from the meadow edge and the meadow and use the above experimental results to select fertilizer treatments for experimental plots along the meadow edge. Measure: Plant height and tuber production. Methods: First, test soil samples from the garden and meadow edge and meadow to determine baseline N and P levels. We recommend three nutrient-addition treatments, an N+P fertilizer, an N fertilizer, such as ammonium nitrate holding the total N constant, and a P fertilizer, such as bone meal, holding the total P constant. Establish 15 large pots or plots with one tuber each; add the nutrients as indicated above, with 5 pots or plots per treatment. Grow outdoors in spring under uniform light for one growing season. 62 Analysis: Compare plant height and tuber production (number and wet weight) for each treatment. A later experiment could effects of fertilizing in summer to increase tuber and rhizome formation. Retain all tubers for transplantation to the meadow edge or meadow experiments. Sweetgrass Sweetgrass grows well from ramets, but seedlings are needed to increase genetic diversity. We know that vegetative ramets do not grow best with waterlogged soil, but we have not tested the need for (or tolerance of) waterlogged soil on seedling germination and early seedling growth. Thus, we recommend first growing new plants from seed. In our experience at UW, six of 15 seeds produced seedlings that expanded vegetatively in the greenhouse. The 15 seeds came from inflorescences contained in a single block of sod (about 40 cm square) provided by Brandon Seitz in fall 2008. We understand that GRPO has contracted out the growing of sweetgrass propagules for restoration purposes (Seitz, pers. comm.). Experiment 1.4.1: Test of sweetgrass seedling establishment Hypothesis: Sweetgrass seedlings develop best in wet soil. Priority: High for developing genetically diverse ramets for subsequent vegetative propagation. Constants: Seed source (use local source to obtain locally adapted genotypes), light supply, temperature. Variables: Soil moisture (wet vs. drained pots). Measure: Rates of seedling establishment and seedling growth. Methods: Place equal numbers of seeds in shallow pots (4‖ deep) with drainage holes; roughen the soil surface, and randomly assign to wet vs. drained treatments (5 pots per treatment). For the wet treatment, place the pot in a plastic saucer that will retain water. Randomly distribute the 5 wet and 5 moist pots in a sunny place within the garden. Water all pots with the same amount of water—enough for water to collect in the saucers of the ―wet‖ pots. Analysis: Compare averages of seedlings at 4 weeks and their maximum heights in wet vs. drained pots. Experiment 1.4.2: Test of sweetgrass facilitation by Greene’s rush Because we did not encounter Vasey‘s rush in the meadow vegetation survey, we recommend testing the ability of Greene‘s rush to facilitate sweetgrass growth. Hypothesis: Greene‘s rush facilitates sweetgrass growth. Alternative hypothesis: Greene‘s rush merely indicates wetland conditions that favor sweetgrass. Priority: Medium priority, because Ipsen‘s (2010) greenhouse experiment at UW indicated that sweetgrass grows well and spreads rapidly in monoculture. 63 Constants: Pot size (1-ft diameter), transplants per pot, temperature, soil, nutrients and water supply. Variable: Neighbor identity (growth of sweetgrass alone and with another wetland plant species). Measure: Length of tallest sweetgrass stretched leaf, measured monthly; expansion of clone diameter over the growing season. Count flowering stalks if present. Methods: Provide moist soil and full sun in the garden, and grow sweetgrass ramets alone and in pots with and without ramets of Greene‘s rush. The same experiment can be done with horsetail, bulrush, and Vasey‘s rush, if available. Each mixed-species pot would have one ramet of sweetgrass and one ramet of the other species. Each sweetgrass pot would have two sweetgrass ramets (to control for planting density). We suggest 10 replicates per treatment. Analysis: If the rush facilitates sweetgrass growth, sweetgrass ramets would average greater height and/or a larger area of ramets at the end of the growing season. Compare relative growth rates (sweetgrass in pot with a neighbor as a proportion of sweetgrass grown alone). If a neighbor increases sweetgrass growth or flowering, it would be considered a ―facilitator‖ that could be planted along with sweetgrass in meadow reintroduction tests. If locally adapted genotypes of Vasey‘s rush can be located, it would be useful to develop techniques for seeding it into the meadow and for transplanting its ramets. Tests could begin in the garden, varyiny moisture, as in the sweetgrass experiment. Once enough ramets are available, the above facilitation experiment could be initiated. If Vasey‘s rush facilitates sweetgrass but will not grow well in meadow soil, further experimentation would be needed to identify limiting factors in the field. Most of the meadow does not support wetland vegetation, but below, we suggest removing a few trees along with their root systems and soil to lower the soil surface to levels closer to the water table. Tree removal areas could become suitable sites for Greene‘s rush, Vasey‘s rush and other potential facilitators of sweetgrass growth. As discussed in Phase 3, several graminoid species could be planted across the elevation gradient from edge to bottom of the depression, assuming that the deeper areas of the depression will be wetter than the shallower edges. If growth increases in relation to soil moisture for sweetgrass and other desired graminoids, the number of tree removals could increase to accommodate a larger sweetgrass restoration effort. Phase 2: Meadow-edge experiments If chives and young sunchokes are not shade tolerant, they might not compete well with taller species, which would help explain their absence/rarity in the meadow. If chives grow best with full sunlight at the meadow edge, it is not likely that it will thrive in the meadow. The meadow edge might then become the target location for restoration of chives. If young sunchokes respond to full sunlight at the meadow edge, then transplantation to the meadow could occur with mowing or other management to increase light until sunchokes are well established. The area where meadow-edge experiments could be implemented is mapped in Figure 3.1. 64 We have higher expectations for sunchoke growth than for chives in the meadow edge, because sunchokes were found nearby in the 2009 survey. Soil conditions are likely suitable. Also, because sunchokes are much taller than chives, it is less likely that light limits sunchokes, at least where there are ample nutrients. We suspect that sunchokes are now rare due to historical harvesting. The species is widely grown for domestic and commercial purposes (see ―Species Profiles‖). It is a conspicuous plant that would be easily located and depleted by anyone who knows the species. Alternatively, the sunchokes that are present in the meadow could be a variety that requires more light and nutrients than varietys used in agriculture. An initial test of light requirements could eliminate the need for more complicated experientation with nutrients in the garden. If the following experiment indicates that shade limits sunchoke establishment, the garden experiment would be unnecessary, and meadow restoration could begin sooner. Experiment 2.1: Test of chives and sunchoke light limitation Hypothesis: Chives and young sunchokes will grow fastest in full sunlight. Priority: High if garden experiment indicates that light is limiting and high because the meadow-edge plantings would attract the interest of visitors. Constants: Plot size, soil, chives bulb density or sunchoke tuber density. Variable: Two light levels, created by mowing and not mowing prior to planting chives. During the experiment, it might be necessary to hand-clip resprouting vegetation to maintain full sunlight in the mowed plots. Methods: We recommend establishing ten 1x2-m experimental plots in a row parallel to the fence around the south edge of the meadow. An area south of the fence in full sun and next to the mowed lawn would be suitable. Random assign 5 plots to be mowed and 5 unmowed. In each plot, equal numbers of seedlings or bulbs of chives and seedlings or small tubers of sunchoke would be planted and monitored for survival and new growth. These plantings would need to be about 30 cm apart so they do not interact with one another during their establishment and early growth. Use a bulb planter to remove sod; add the bulb or tuber; and replace loose dirt, discarding the roots of other species. Measure heights of plants at monthy intervals or at least at the end of the growing season (maximum stretched leaf). Analysis: Compare growth with and without mowing. A positive response to mowing by either chives or sunchokes would justify a larger experiment with mowed strips within the meadow (described below). The first step, however, is to test shade tolerance so the Task Force can base their decision on the experimental outcomes. 65 Phase 3: Adaptive restoration within the meadow We recommend introducing sunchokes, chives and sweetgrass into the meadow using experimental approaches that will answer key questions about what limits their populations. We suggest that sunchokes will need relief from competition from taller plants, that chives might require full sunlight and be unable to compete with meadow vegetation and that sweetgrass might be confined to moist, low-nutrient microsites. Thus, we recommend experiments involving mowing and tree-removal. Competitors likely reduce the abundance of all three target species so that introducing them to areas that have been mowed or had trees removed will temporarily shift the competitive advantage from taller meadow species to ramets of newly planted target species. If mowing and follow-up clipping are needed to propagate chives, the meadow edge might need to become the permanent site for chives restoration. Alternatively, annual mowing of selected meadow plots would need to become a permanent management practice for chives. If the latter, we suggest that the Task Force decide if long-term mowing would be possible for the meadow before introducing chives to areas that are currently fully vegetated. If long-term mowing is both required for chives and a possibility for management, then chives could be reintroduced into plots that are identified for long-term mowing (possibly in conjunction with site-scale management experiments proposed in Phase 4, below). If long-term mowing is not possible, chives could still be introduced to areas of tree removal within the meadow, in depressions resulting from excavating tree stumps and large roots. If the soil in the resulting depressions is depleted of nutrients or saturated with water or otherwise limiting to growth of meadow vegetation, the depressions might be more suitable for sustaining short plants, such as chives and sweetgrass. Short-term mowing (i.e., for one or two years) should suffice to establish sunchokes in the meadow, since this species already occurs there and might have become rare due to overharvesting. Short-term mowing of existing vegetation and planting of sunchoke tubers should give this desired species a competitive edge during the vulnerable establishment period. Once tubers are large and numerous, it should thrive without continued mowing. For sweetgrass, we hypothesize that wet soil is a primary limiting factor, followed by competition from taller neighbors, and that reestablishment will be most effective if initiated in the wetter, southwest portion of the meadow, where Greene‘s rush occurs. We also hypothesize that the removal of trees and roots to create shallow depressions will expand habitat for sweetgrass. Potential locations for each of the following experiments are mapped in Figure 3.1. Experiment 3.1: Test of young sunchoke requirement for light Following garden experiments that indicate a negative effect of shade on young sunchokes, we suggest an additional mowing experiment to test for improved establishment within the meadow. Because we recommend using the trees as sites for other restoration experiments (below), mowed areas and access routs should not be near trees; instead, leave wide buffers around trees in the meadow. The first mowing experiment could be small, in keeping with the small number of propagules that will be available for transplanting. Subsequent mowing could employ larger areas as more sunchoke propagules become available. We suggest mowing strips in well-drained areas, leaving wetter areas for sweetgrass restoration. Mowing is intended to reduce shade for planting sunchoke seedings and/or small 66 tubers in areas within and outside the mowed strips. The methods would be the same for chives, if mowing could be a permanent management action. Hypothesis: Mowing will increase survival and growth of the target species. Priority: Medium. If the meadow-edge experiment already supports the hypothesis, then mowing could be adopted as a management practice without further experimentation. Constants: Number of propagules planted, genotype (locally adapted), soil. Variables: Mowed or unmowed vegetation (plant cover and species). Note that if soil is variable across the meadow, that paired mowed-unmowed plots could be designated within areas of similar soil. Measure: Count number of propagules that survive. Record average height of the tallest stretched leaf of each plant, and note if each plant flowered (count the number of inflorescences). It would also help to assess the species richness and composition of each experimental plot to ensure that paired plots are similar and to relate sunchoke outcomes to neighboring plants. Methods: Mow strips that are at least six feet (~2 m) wide. Plant seedlings or small tubers in 1-m2 plots with and without a mowed canopy in a paired-plot experimental design. For each site, establish three 1-m2 plots within and outside the mowed strip. Add three propagules to each plot to test the effect of shading by neighbors and to compare survival and growth across the range of conditions present in the well-drained subarea. Analysis: Compare target species‘ establishment with and without mowing other vegetation. Express the number of ramets that establish and mean height and flowering in each unmowed plot as a percent of the same response variable in its paired mowed plot. This will scale the data so that the average effect of mowing can be determined for each response variable. If establishment is satisfactory but the effect is small, then mowing might not be warranted. If the establishment rate is low and not related to mowing, then other factors need to be explored (e.g., nutrient addition). Results of the mowing experiment will indicate the species‘ light requirements in restoration sites. If mowing on a small scale increases survival and growth of chives and/or sunchokes, then mowing and plantings could be expanded elsewhere within the well-drained areas of the meadow. Mowed strips could serve as access routes for volunteers or visitors. This could be a positive outcome, if volunteers are attracted to the project, or a negative outcome, if visitors overharvest either of the planted species. Each year, the Task Force should review findings and decide how best to proceed. A different type of experiment is proposed to determine the optimal environmental conditions for expansion of the current sweetgrass population. For this, we propose altering conditions along the edge of the existing sweetgrass clone(s). The current population has an edge of about 60 meters where mowing would increase light and reduce competition for water and where shallow excavation would eliminate neighboring species roots and increase soil moisture. 67 Experiment 3.2: Comparison of methods to expand the existing sweetgrass population Hypothesis: Sweetgrass is constrained by aboveground competition, belowground competition, or both. Priority: High, because the most likely place that the population can expand is near where it already occurs. Constants: Plot size, proximity to edge of sweetgrass clone. Variables: Mowing to remove shoots of neighbors and increase light availability; excavation of shallow depressions. The latter would combine two factors, namely, removing neighbors‘ roots and increasing surface soil moisture by lowering the soil surface and bringing it closer to the groundwater level). Measure: Expansion of sweetgrass clone into each treatment plot (distance outward from a marked starting line). Methods: Mow along the edge of the existing continuous sweetgrass to reduce competition for light and excavate shallow depressions, setting up three treatments (mow; excavate; control = no treatment). The current sweetgrass population has two adjacent patches with a combined edge of about 60 m. This would allow up to 12 contiguous plots, each 5 m long. We recommend four replicates. Treatment plots (5m long x 1m wide) would be established within four 15-m-long blocks, each block having all three treatments in random positions. Analysis: Compare sweetgrass expansion with in the three treatments: control, mowing and shallow excavation. If sweetgrass expand only with mowing, then competition for light is implicated, although mowing would also reduce competition for water and nutrients. If only the shallow depressions allow sweetgrass to expand, then root competition or moisture are implicated. If the both mowing and depressions increase sweetgrass expansion, the species may be limited by competition both above- and belowground. Management to expand the sweetgrass population by long-term mowing would seem feasible, but we suspect that a limited area with moist soil will confine sweetgrass to the southwest corner of the meadow. Increased expansion into the shallow depressions and observations of greater soil moisture where neighboring roots are excavated would support the hypothesis that sweetgrass is a stronger competitor under wetter, less nutrient-rich conditions. Rather than proposing the grading of the meadow to lower the soil surface, we suggest removing trees and their roots in search of suitable microhabitats for sweetgrass espansion. Experiment 3.3: Test of sweetgrass establishment following tree removal Because sweetgrass is short-statured, it is likely outgrown by taller, shade-producing species, and because it is associated with certain wetland conditions (e.g., groundwater seepages with low nutrient status), its competitive ability is probably limited in drier sites and in nutrient- rich siges, both of which would favor taller, more aggressive upland plants. To increase habitat for sweetgrass, we suggest the experimental removal of selected evergreen trees, including their roots, to create shallow depressions. The depressions should allow water to accumulate or at least lower the soil surface closer to the water table. We suggest 68 beginning with the removal of 3-5 trees where the soil is already moist to wet. Trees could be chosen based on soil moisture conditions that are relatively high or where well points indicate that the water table is near the surface. Hypothesis 1: Shallow, ―tree-removal depressions‖ will provide suitable conditions for sweetgrass. Suitable conditions would include one or more of the following: reduced competition from neighbors, increased soil moisture, or a temporary advantage by being planted (speeding establishment relative to competitors that would need to disperse into the depressions and establish from seed). Hypothesis 2: If indicated by the garden experiment, rare wetland plants (Greene‘s rush, Vasey‘s rush, or others) will facilitate establishment and expansion of sweetgrass). Priority: High, because some tree removal is a restoration objective, and the experiment will indicate if sweetgrass can be readily restored by planting in bare depressions. Constants: Size of depressions (depth and diameter), density of sweetgrass plugs and density of plugs of potential facilitators (if the Task Force decides that the garden experiment warrants such tests). Variables: Location of sweetgrass plantings within the depression (surrogate for elevation and soil moisture) and presence or absence of potential facilitators. Methods: To assess location effects, we propose comparing 4-5 plugs near the bottom center with 4-5 plugs near the upper edge. The grid of sweetgrass ramets would have to be sparse enough to test expansion rates (50 cm). Plant two ramets per grid point (either 2 sweet grass ramets or 1 sweetgrass + 1 potential facilitator). Adding mulch between plugs would reduce colonization by unwanted species. Collect soil cores (1‖ diameter, 6‖ deep) at center and edge of depression, 3-5 cores per location; place in air-tight plastic bags; label and assess moisture conditions. All cores to be compared must be taken on the same day, at least once after sweetgrass planting and once at the end of the growing season. Randomly select ramets to monitor in each location; mark with flags. Measure: Height (maximum length of stretched leaves) and initial diameter of each ramet selected for monitoring at planting time, during mid summer and at the end of the growing season. Measure basal diameters of the ramet (or clone, one it has expanded vegetatively) on north-south and east-west axes. Use average diameter per clone to compare expansion rates by location. Measure soil moisture by weighing the cores; then oven dry 24 hr at and reweigh; soil moisture = weight loss on drying divided by the final dry weight of the soil (bag not included). Photos of each planted depression will be useful. Analysis: Compare heights and clonal expansion rates for central (deeper) and edge (shallower) locations within each depression. If deeper locations have greater height and expansion rates, future tree removals could involve larger areas with deep excavation. If the potential facilitator(s) merely indicate the presence of wet soil, then no difference in clonal expansion of sweetgrass expansion would expected with and without neighbors. 69 Experiment 3.4: Test of sweetgrass facilitation by Greene’s rush Greene‘s rush occurs in the northwest corner of the meadow near the two patches of sweetgrass. If the garden experiment indicates that Greene‘s rush facilitates sweetgrass, then a meadow experiment could test this concept further. We suggest planting sweetgrass ramets with and without Greene‘s rush in small plots where neither species occurs in the meadow, but where soil moisture is relatively high. Other wetland plant indicators could be used to select suitable plots (6-10 plots with sweetrass, of which 3-5 would be with and 3-5 without Greene‘s rush). If Greene‘s rush merely indicates the presence of wet soil, then no difference in clonal expansion of sweetgrass expansion would expected. These meadow plots would need to be mowed prior to planting to reduce competition and potentially weeded to allow establishment by sweetgrass and Greene‘s rush ramets. Hypothesis: Greene‘s rush facilitates sweetgrass growth. Priority: Low unless the garden experiment indicates a neighbor effect. Not needed if the tree removal experiment is already underway with and without wetland-plant neighbors. Constants: Plot size and ramet density. Variables: Presence or absence of Greene‘s rush. Methods: Select 3-5 locations within the meadow where soils are moist. At each location, select two similar plots, each about 1 m2. Randomly select one of each of the paired plots to have one ramet of sweetgrass and one ramet of Greene‘s rush and the other to have two ramets of sweetgrass (to control for ramet density). The paired plots will help control for any location effect within the meadow. Measure: Monitor initial height and ramet diameters and expansion rates as above. If possible, measure soil moisture in each co-planted area once after sweetgrass planting, and once at the end of the growing season. Analysis: Compare expansion with and without Greene‘s rush. For each pair of plots, calculate height increase and diameter increase with Greene‘s rush divided by the same variables without Greene‘s rush. A consistent pattern of greater height or greater diameter expansion with Greene‘s rush would indicate a facilitator function for this neighbor, and future co-plantings would be warranted. Similar heights and expansion rates would suggest that Greene‘s rush is merely an indicator of suitable habitat for sweetgrass. Pictures of the plot will be useful. Mowing meadow vegetation and removing trees are two experimental manipulations that will create a more heterogeneous landscape with more diverse microsites. Open canopies and wet depressions will make the meadow more spatially heterogeneous and able to sustain a higher diversity of culturally important species. It is also possible that weedy species will colonize the disturbed soils and that continual weeding will be needed. These experiments are intended to increase populations of culturally important species, but both mowing and tree-removal depressions may have the effect of creating favorable microhabitats for addition native species. More variety in microhabitats could result in greater diversity of native plant species as well as insect, mammal and birds at GRPO. 70 Figure 3.1. Potential placement of several Phase 3 experiments. Drawings are nearly to scale. Blue = unmowed controls, red = mowed treatments, yellow = excavated treatments, and orange = sites suggested for tree removal followed by sweetgrass planting and soil monitoring (coring) in the resulting depression. See text for detailed recommendations concerning implementation of these and other experiments. 71 Phase 4: Adaptive management within the meadow The first three phases of experimentation should indicate suitable environments for individual species (sunchoke needs full sunlight, sweetgrass needs moist soil, etc.) while testing the effectiveness of management actions to provide needed environments (mowing around young sunchokes, felling trees and excavating tree roots to create wet depressions for sweetgrass, etc.). Those experiments should direct short-term management in support of the establishment and early growth of target species in the meadow. Larger-scale and longer-term management should mimic traditional ethnobotanical practices, and alternative strategies can be tested within an adaptive management framework. Management of mature populations of target species, and management of meadow as a whole, can be guided by field experiments that test the effects of ethnobotanical practices before scaling up for use throughout the site. Recruiting local volunteers to test the effects of harvesting will promote ethnobotanical use of the target species, help explain decision-making by managers (if, for example, test- harvesting leads to a localized population crash and harvesting must be limited), and introduce harvesting in a limited/sustainable way. Harvest experiments would help managers directly assess the effects of using target species and compare effects of different ethnobotanical practices. If park managers and volunteers engage in, and learn from, management activities, extractive uses could become sustainable and serve the overall management goal: Management goal: Improve the people’s relationships with plants in the meadow area; the former site of the 19th century village of Grand Portage. Presently, caraway is the only target species that is common enough in the meadow to be managed at a large scale (caraway was fifth most frequent and fifth most abundant among all species in the 202 quadrats surveyed in 2009). Like all the target species in this project, caraway has traditionally been harvested by local people. Below, we describe a split-plot experiment to test the effects of harvesting seeds (every year vs. every other year) and whole-plant removal of flowering individuals (for seeds, leaves, and taproots). The experiment would allow volunteers to participate in an ongoing experiment, engage in a cultural activity, and take home edible plant parts (seeds and taproots, noting the aforementioned caution about spreading a potential weed species). Managers would get a sense for what level of harvest is sustainable and how the plant could be effectively controlled if it becomes too invasive. Future harvest of sunchokes, sweetgrass, and chives could begin through similar experimental trials. In addition to target-species management, it is necessary to consider ethnobotanical management at the whole-site scale. The meadow is now mowed most years and burned intermittently. Fire is the more traditional mode of American grassland management, and managers and residents are enthusiastic about burning. However, mowing is more reliable because it is generally less expensive, less weather dependent, and requires fewer people and less staging. Thus, a switch from the status quo (mowing) to a more ethnobotanically-based practice (fire) will require strong support and persuasive arguments from the Task Force. We propose test-burns in subsections of the meadow. Burning in an experimental manner for several years would give managers a preview of changes in vegetation that could be expected with long-term burning, and the results would help managers decide if frequent whole-site burns are desirable. 72 Experiment 4.1: Comparison of caraway harvest methods Caraway has a 2-year life cycle, which may or may not be compatible with potential rates and methods of harvest. Managers of the GRPO meadow could face either of two problems with caraway: it becomes too abundant (weedy and competitive with other target species) or it becomes over-harvested and the population declines. Hence, our proposed harvest-test includes treatments that are severe enough to extirpate/exhaust caraway locally (and thus control carwaway where it is unwanted) and other treatments that are low-impact and likely sustainable (to guide cultural use practices). We suggest three progressively damaging harvest treatments: biennial seed-head harvest, annual seed-head harvest, and annual whole-mature-plant harvest, including leaves and taproot (both of which are edible). Harvest effects will be monitored over several years by comparing the number of seed heads in each treatment plot to the number in an un- harvested plot. Hypothesis: The number of potentially harvestable seed heads will be highest in the unharvested control plots, second-highest in the biennial seed-head harvest plots, third-highest in the annual seed-head harvest plots, and lowest in the annual whole- mature-plant harvest plots. Priority: High, because this would provide an immediate way to connect local people to a culturally significant plant and develop interest in restoration/ethnobotanical management; especially important if vegetation monitoring shows caraway to increase continually in frequency of occurrence and abundance. Constants: Plot size and starting number of seed heads per plot (as close as possible within experimental blocks (clusters of 4 plots)). Variables: Harvest treatment. Methods: Select 3-5 locations within the meadow where caraway occurs at high and fairly uniform density. At each location, select a square of 20x20-m, sub-divide that space into four plots. Randomly assign each of the following treatments to one of the four plots: control, biennial seed-head harvest, annual seed-head harvest, and annual whole- mature-plant harvest. These four plots comprise an experimental block (if one location with caraway reacts differently, it should affect the entire block of treatment plots). In late July (or whenever caraway seeds are ripe at GRPO), visit each block and do the following: 1) record the number of seed heads present in each plot 2) collect all caraway seed heads in the biennial- and annual-seed-head-harvest plots and 3) collect the taproot and shoots of all mature individuals (with seed-heads) in the whole-mature-plant harvest plot. The following year, in late July, repeat all the above but without harvesting seed heads in the biennial treatment (and every other year thereafter, for at least 3 years). Measure: Number of seed heads in each plot (before harvest treatments are administered each year, as a measure of how much caraway is still harvestable and reproducing). Optionally, could measure leaf heights of several individuals in each plot or seed yield of the three harvested plots to check for declining plant height or seed yield over each year (if a high-resolution scale is available to weigh small seeds). 73 Analysis: Compare the mean number of seed heads for each treatment. If harvest treatments results in significantly fewer seed heads, that harvest method may be unsustainable when repeated in a given area. But such harvest methods would also be useful if control of caraway is desired. Experiment 4.2: Comparison of site-scale management activities Prescribed burning is an attractive alternative to mowing for managing the GRPO meadow. Burning has the potential to reduce shrub cover and favor native, fire-adapted species. But assessment of outcomes can be complicated by: missing pre-set goals (fire did not extirpate invasive species X) and confounding effects of ―year‖ due to the all-or-nothing nature of burning (e.g., comparing conditions when burned in 2011 to not-burned in 2010). The goal of this experiment is to test the effect of fire vs. mowing by setting up sub-plots within the meadow that would be burned whenever the whole site is mowed. The vegetation would be assessed in burned plots and in paired, unburned control plots with similar vegetation. The main objective is to find out how the abundances of species (especially weedy, invasive, and target species) respond to fire. By burning only a portion of the site at high frequency, the possible negative consequences of extirpating soil invertebrates or exhausting vegetation are limited in scope; also, the relatively small area for each burn (400 m2) should decrease the difficulty in managing the burn and the number of people needed to control the fire. Hypothesis: Species‘ abundances will differ significantly in burned vs. unburned plots. Shrub species will likely have lower cover in burned plots, whereas grasses (both wanted and unwanted) will likely have higher cover in burned plots. Priority: Low, relative to experiments that will help restore target species to the meadow. Constants: Plot size, season and year of mow/burn. Variables: Prescribed burn or not. Methods: Select 3-5 locations throughout the meadow. At each location, select two plots with similar vegetation, each plot should be 20x20 m (400 m2). Plots should be set up with a 2-3 m buffer between them, and they should be at approximately the same elevation (to reduce elevation effects). Randomly select one of each of the paired plots to serve as the burn plot and the other as the control plot. The paired plots will help control for differences in vegetation within the meadow, and at least one pair of plots should include high cover of shrubs. When the plots are first set up and marked, designate a 5x5-m subplot in the center of each plot to be used for vegetation monitoring. This design will minimize edge-effects and allow a relatively quick survey, which should be done with GPS since any plot markers would be damaged by burning or mowing. When the entire meadow is mowed: the burn plot will be mowed around and the no-burn-plot will be mowed. After mowing is complete, the burn plots should be ignited. When the entire meadow is burned, both plots should be ignited; and when the entire meadow goes unmowed and unburned, both plots should go unmowed and unburned. Measure: Within each subplot, sample initial presence and cover of all species. Re- sample species presence and cover every year while the experiment is running. 74 Analysis: Compare changes in species presence and cover between the burned and unburned plots in each location. Differences in cover of species that occur in most locations can be analyzed statistically, as could differences in cover of functional groups (shrubs vs. forbs vs. grasses). Because presence/absence of species would be collected it would also be possible to tell if species richness (a proxy for diversity) were also changing in response to fire. However, this is essentially a descriptive experiment, so the most valuable information may come from individual data points. For example, (1) in the location with highest initial shrub-cover the burn treatment may extirpate most but not all shrub species; (2) in the location with highest initial smooth-brome-cover the burn treatment may lead to a progressive increase in that exotic grass (likewise for other grasses, or for bird‘s foot trefoil which should have an advantage in N-poor conditions); (3) in some locations burning may lead to an increase in target or associate species (e.g., Greene‘s rush or green bulrush). Harvesting caraway (and eventually other species) and prescribed burning will promote ethnobotanical practices through adaptive management. While the focus of this project is the restoration of the culturally-significant target species, the future of the target species in the GRPO meadow requires careful implementation of plant-harvesting and consideration of multiple management techniques. Species-based experiments, such as Experiment 4.1, could be used to assess the sustainability of alternative methods of harvesting sweetgrass, sunchoke, and chives once those species become harvestable. By first testing harvesting at a small scale, the potential to deplete the population of a target species is minimized. Similar experiments could be done to assess the effectiveness of efforts to control existing populations of undesirable species, such as smooth brome (e.g., test the effects of hand-pulling vs. mowing vs. herbicide). At the whole-site scale, additional management methods of interest to managers could be tested using the design for Experiment 4.2. For example, rather than burning, the treatment plot could be mowed twice as often as the rest of the meadow, or raked after mowing as the rest of the meadow goes un-raked. In either case effects would be evaluated similarly: testing for differences in target and invasive species‘ presence or abundance between treated and untreated plots. Such a comparison will offer more robust support for the use or disuse of a given management practice, as the number of test locations and the number of test years increases. 75 Figure 1.5. Potential placement of Phase 4 experiments. Drawings are nearly to scale. Blue = unmanipulated controls, red = whole-plant removal of caraway, green = annual collection of caraway seed heads, lavender = biennial collection of caraway seed heads, and dark-red/brown = burn plots (or other site-scale management treatment to be tested). See text for detailed recommendations concerning the implementation. 76 Suggested future study: Managing meadow drainage The road along Lake Superior and two drainage ditches or depressions that lead to culverts under the road indicate that hydrological conditions have been altered. Although we have no information on the timing and impacts of these two features, we can speculate how each has affected water flow, soil moisture and the biota. The hard-surface road likely increases surface- water runoff locally, funneling water toward the culverts. The elevated roadbed likely impounds runoff from the meadow and funnels that water toward the culverts. The road and traffic likely affect animals by inhibiting their movement or causing roadkills. Here we focus on the hydrological impacts. The drainage ditches would have been constructed to deplete soil water or convey runoff to culverts or both. Regardless of their purpose, the depressions modify hydrological conditions and could reduce the area suitable for sweetgrass restoration. Ipsen‘s (2010) experiments with moisture conditions indicate that the GRPO sweetgrass genotypes grow well in moist soil. Also, species distributions within the meadow (Part 2 of this report) indicate that seepages are not widespread. Without adequate information on soil moisture and drainage, we suggest that the effects of the drainages and culverts be investigated and the utility of adding water control structures considered (e.g., those of Agridrain; www.agridrain.com/watercontrolproductsinlet.asp). With water control structures, outlets could be open to accommodate spring runoff and prevent flooding the road and closed to reduce surface- and ground-water depletion at other times of the year. Water control structures at each culvert would allow managers to vary drainage. Monitoring surface soil moisture and ground water levels in several wells would allow the Task Force to test the effects of reduced drainage on hydrological conditions in the meadow, thereby increasing the potential to manage sweetgrass adaptively. A reasonable hypothesis is that blocking the culvert during normal growing seasons would enhance and expand conditions for sweetgrass. Impounded water could still be released as needed to prevent flooding the road. The current condition (year-round drainage) would seem to hinder, rather than facilitate, the restoration of sweetgrass at the GRPO meadow. 77 Summary of experiments by phase and priority Priority Monitoring Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Garden Meadow Meadow Meadow edge Restoration Mgmt. High Annually for Chives‘ light Chives and Expanding the Comparison caraway, reed requirement; sunchoke existing of caraway canary grass and light sweetgrass harvest smooth brome; Sunchoke requirement population; methods light (if supported At 5-year requirement; by the Establishing intervals for the garden sweetgrass in 202 vegetation Sweetgrass experiment) tree-removal quadrats seedling depressions establishment in wet soil Medium Does Mowing Greene‘s rush improves growth facilitate of young sweetgrass? sunchokes (if the meadow-edge exp‘t indicates light limitation) Low Annual or Does caraway Does Greene‘s Comparison biennial reduce rush facilitate of site-scale monitoring of growth of sweetgrass? management all species in all other desired activities 202 plots species? Is sunchoke nutrient limited? 78 Discussion and Recommendations Landscape restoration All restoration efforts take place within a larger landscape context, and the condition of the landscape often dictates the degree to which restoration can achieve its goals. For example, GRPO‘s mostly-undeveloped watershed likely provides clean surface water and ground water in quantities that are similar to historical levels. A more developed watershed would discharge excess water of lower quality. The GRPO landscape can also accommodate the use of burning to manage vegetation, whereas an urban landscape would have ordinances to control smoke. And an undeveloped landscape will likely retain more of the native animals that disperse and feed on plants than would an agricultural or urban landscape. For all of these reasons, restoration efforts should have high potential at GRPO, and the meadow restoration effort can be planned with broader perspectives in mind, namely, landscape restoration within the boreal region of North America. Lovell and Johnston (2009) proposed three overriding objectives for restoring landscapes, namely multifunctionality, heterogeneity, and biodiversity. Each is relevant to the restoration of culturally important species in GRPO‘s 3.5-acre meadow. (1) Multifunctionality is a condition for sustainability. Neither a landscape nor a 3.5-acre meadow can persist in perpetuity if it does not support multiple functions, such as providing environmental, social, and economic services. (2) Heterogeneity of spatial pattern is essential for basic ecological interactions that help to sustain biodiversity (e.g., one species facilitating another and predator-prey dynamics that keep pest populations in check). (3) Restoration and protection of biodiversity is an overall goal, because biodiversity includes species that were introduced and cultured by early settlers and that retain values that are relevant to Grand Portage as a National Monument. To these, we add a fourth objective, namely (4) adaptive restoration or ―learning while restoring.‖ Experimental manipulations and observations of outcomes will show how best to sustain desired species and control the weedier plants. Our proposed experiments are intended to enhance ecosystem functions while adding spatial heterogeneity and increasing biodiversity support in the meadow. Thus, we characterize three subareas of the meadow (wetter patches, drier terrain, and edges with high light), and we propose different restoration actions to favor wetland, upland and light-requiring species. In this way, the biodiversity-support functions of each subarea will complement one another. The approach we propose for restoring culturally important species would increase multifunctionality, heterogeneity, and biodiversity, as follows: - Multifunctionality The restoration of culturally important species to sustainable levels will support recreation and esthetic appeal, as well as community involvement. Social functions would increase as visual quality changes and as educational opportunities arise. Heritage value will be enhanced when the populations of historically abundant species become sustainable and as interpretive signage and leaflets portray the roles that these species played in past centuries. Economic functions will be enhanced as edible plants (chives, caraway, sunchokes) become more available, and as sweetgrass becomes more abundant for ceremonial use. Economic development would be fostered by the 79 provision of sweetgrass for use in weaving and other artwork which may be sold by local artisans. Sustainable harvesting of sweetgrass is a suitable goal for the restored population at GRPO. - Heterogeneity of spatial pattern The meadow is relatively flat and mostly unwooded. Two of the management actions that we recommend (mowing strips and selectively removing a subset of trees) would contribute to the heterogeneity of the landscape. Neither open areas nor wet depressions occur in the meadow. By creating them, we would make the site more spatially heterogeneous. Creating more diverse microhabitats throughout the meadow should increase the potential to support larger populations of the three rare and culturally important species and also a greater diversity of native species. - Restore and protect biodiversity of the existing meadow vegetation The meadow and nearby terrain has had a long history of natural and human disturbances. Over millennia, these included glacial cover and retreat, lake-level fluctuations, changing groundwater quantity and quality, and wildfire. Over recent centuries, humans added burning, logging, firewood collection, trampling, grazing, livestock corrals, habitation, gardening, inadvertent species introductions, and disposal of gray water and wastes. As a result, the soils have likely been altered by additions and removals of both mineral and organic materials, as well as excavations that would have exposed organic layers to oxidation and trampling that would have compacted layers that might otherwise have remained aerated. It is difficult to imagine all the changes that the groundwater, soil structure and soil microorganisms have undergone since humans first camped at this site along Lake Superior. Neither the abiotic nor biotic conditions are pristine. Thus, the meadow can be considered a novel environment with novel plant assemblages made up of both native and introduced species. It is dominated by herbaceous perennial plants, but meadow vegetation is not likely to persist without fire or mowing, because the climate and surrounding vegetation indicate that ecological succession would otherwise proceed toward boreal forest. Shrubs and some trees are already present among the herbaceous vegetation. The novel meadow will need continual management to remain a meadow. In our 2009 sampling and observations, the GRPO meadow was found to support 107 plant species, of which 86 were recorded in at least one of our 202 sampling plots (1-m2 quadrats). Of the 86 species found in the meadow, 71 were native plant species, 15 were introduced species, 16 were weedy, 6 were invasive according to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and USDA. 63 were classified as abundant. Caraway, sunchokes and sweetgrass were classified as dominant or prominent in 89, 2 and 3 plots, respectively. Of the culturally-important species, three were rare (chives, sunchokes, and sweetgrass) and one (caraway) was abundant and potentially invasive. In 2009, caraway occurred in 71 plots, sweetgrass was found in four, sunchokes in two, and chives in none. Greene‘s rush (a potential indicator of habitat suitable for sweetgrass or a potential facilitator of sweetgrass growth) was not found in the plots or in extensive surveillance of the meadow. Vasey‘s rush (Juncus vaseyi) was encountered in no plots, nor was it observed anywhere else in the meadow. Additionally several undesirable species were identified and the most prominent consisted of smooth brome (Bromis inermis), bird‘s foot trefoil (Lotus cornicalatus), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and willow (Salix spp.) which were classified as dominant or prominent in 43, 80 75, 42, and 36 quadrats respectively. The two most invasive species (reed canary grass [Phalaris arundinacea] and smooth brome) threaten the diverse plant community if left unchecked. Reed canary grass was confined to small patches, but smooth brome occurred in about 14% of the plots. Eradication efforts are needed before either population has an opportunity to expand further. The restoration of four target species has the potential to affect existing vegetation. For example, if sunchokes expand, shorter species might be outshaded. Simultaneously, species that are already present might negatively affect restoration efforts, since all four target species prefer full sun/partial shade (Kays and Nottingham 2008, White 2002, Craig 2006, Plants for a Future 1996). Trees and tall shrubs could shade or otherwise outcompete short herbaceous targets either as seedlings (all four targets) or as adults (chives, sweetgrass). Dr. Deb Pomroy identified 13 shrub species in 2009, and within plots sampled for vegetation the most common willows and dogwoods were most commonly encountered (occurring in 20% and 18% of plots, respectively). We understand that GRPO aims to remove some of the trees that are present within the meadow and between the meadow and Lake Superior. Summary of recommendations for monitoring and restoration We recommend establishing an ―Adaptive Restoration Task Force‖ to oversee monitoring and experimentation, supervise data collection, interpret and archive the data, and use the information to guide the overall restoration effort at GRPO. We recommend monitoring the 202 plots that were sampled in 2009, resampling annually for target species (desired and weedy species) and at 5-yr intervals to assess changes in native species distributions and overall biodiversity. We recommend that reed canary grass be eradicated immediately, because it does not yet have a large population at GRPO. We recommend controlling smooth brome throughout the meadow. We recommend adaptive monitoring, restoration, and management of the target species as follows: (1) Long-term monitoring of the meadow vegetation, using the 2009 survey as a baseline and refining methods to suit changing priorities. (2) Experimentation in the garden to determine the environmental factors that restrict growth of the three rare target species and to provide propagules for restoration. (3) Experimentation at the meadow edge to serve as further tests of pant growth, demonstration exhibits, and plots that could sustain some level of harvesting. (4) Experimental restoration of three rare species in the meadow. (5) Experimental harvest of caraway and management at the site scale. 81 Highlighting ecological functions: Education and community involvement Education and community involvement could enhance the adaptive restoration of culturally- important species to the GRPO meadow. Here, we suggest ways to interest local people in the project and to make visitors aware of efforts to sustain culturally important species. To encourage awareness and participation in the restoration effort, GRPO staff could develop displays, leaflets, and items for purchase in the visitor center. Display: For the visitor center, we suggest a poster and dried specimens (pressed plants or a dry bouquet) describing the four culturally-important species (chives, sunchokes, sweetgrass and caraway), using information in the literature reviews that accompany this restoration plan. Leaflets: Local people and visitors would likely appreciate information about the four target species. Anecdotes about their history at the site, if known, would also be of interest. A map could show where chives, sunchokes and sweetgrass are being grown on the meadow edge, where visitors are welcome to inspect and occasionally harvest plantings. Caraway should be highlighted for its cultural and potential economic value, but the public should also be aware of its potential to become invasive. Reed canary grass and smooth brome are target species for eradication, and visitors should be informed on how to identify and prevent the spread of these species. A leaflet could ask visitors not to spread them to other sites. After mowing and tree removal experiments have been completed, we suggest that an updated leaflet explain the results of the experimental process and call for volunteers to expand the restoration approach that is judged to be the most effective. Items for purchase: A recipe booklet for chives, sunchokes and caraway could spark the interest in culturally important plants by both local residents and visitors. Recipes for caraway could motivate volunteers to collect seed if the species becomes overly abundant. Many recipes using caraway are available on culinary web sites; they include breads, crackers, cookies, cheese spreads and a ―seed cake.‖ Recipes could be tested, modified, and published in a booklet for sale in the visitor center. Samples of the foods could also be sold during events that attract large numbers of visitors. Packets of caraway seed with a GRPO label might be an attractive souvenir for visitors. As indicated above, the seeds should be microwaved to render them non-viable to reduce chances of establishing invasive populations elsewhere and to sterilize material intended for use in food. The label would need to indicate that the seeds are not viable. Signage: Signs would be useful at the meadow edge to describe experiments that are underway or planned and to call for volunteers to assist in the restoration work. Such signs would highlight the culturing of chives, sunchokes and sweetgrass along the meadow edge. While the meadow-edge experiments are underway, signs and tour guides could indicate the importance of each species, the impacts of overharvesting, and the ongoing restoration of rare species to the meadow. 82 Once the meadow-edge experiments are finished, local residents could be permitted to harvest some plants for cultivation elsewhere. If the meadow-edge experiments indicate that all three species benefit from high-light conditions, and if the mowed-meadow strips indicate that management is needed to sustain these species, the Task Force might encourage human trampling around selected patches within the meadow. Each year, the Task Force could update tour guides with new information on the condition of the meadow and the progress of the restoration effort. The educational effort should benefit local youth, visitors, and community members and encourage people to volunteer to help the restoration and educational efforts. Including local people in the execution and monitoring of the experiments would promote help preserve the cultural uses and, for sweetgrass, traditional ceremonies. 83 References Adams, C. R., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2005. Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass): Rapid growth and growth pattern in conditions approximating newly restored wetlands. Ecoscience 12:569-573. Apfelbaum, S. I., and C. E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Natural Areas Journal 7:69-74. Catford, J. A., R. Jansson, and C. Nilsson. 2009. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Divesity and Distributions 15:22-40. Craig, W.J. 2006. Chive talkin‘. Vibrant Life 2006: 22:20. Davies. D. 1992. Alliums: The Ornamental Onions. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Derr, J. F. 2008. Common Reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:12-16. Foster, R. D., and P. R. Wetzel. 2005. Invading monotypic stands of Phalaris arundinacea: A test of fire, herbicide, and woody and herbaceous native plant groups. Restoration Ecology 13:318-324. Foster, Steven, and J. A. Duke. 2000. Eastern/Central Medicinal Plants and Herbs. Peterson Field Guides. 354. Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733-755. Gigon, A., and R. Langenauer. 1998. Blue Data Books: An encouraging new instrument for restoration and conservation. Applied Vegetation Science 1:131-138. Grand Portage National Monument/Minnesota: Final General Monument Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Available online. <http://www.nps.gov/grpo/parkmgmt/upload/GRPOGMP.PDF> Grant, E. A., and W. G. Sallans. 1964. Influence of plant extracts on germination and growth of eight forage grasses. Journal of the British Grassland Society 19:191-197. Green, E. K., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2002. Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:134-144. Growing Taste. ―Sunchokes‖. A home food-gardening resource. 2009. Web. October 2008. <http://growingtaste.com/vegetables/sunchoke.shtml>. Healy, M. G., and J. B. Zedler. 2010. Setbacks in replacing Phalaris arundinacea monotypes with sedge meadow vegetation. Restoration Ecology 18: 155-164. Herr-Turoff, A., and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Does wet prairie vegetation retain more nitrogen with or without Phalaris arundinacea invasion? Plant and Soil 277:19-34. Ipsen, J. 2010. Effects of varying water and fertilizer levels on Hierochloe hirta (northern sweetgrass) with implications for restoration. Biology 152 Independent Research Project Report. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kays, S.J. and Nottingham S.F. (2007). Biology and Chemistry of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L). New York, NY: CRC Press. Kercher, S. M., and J. B. Zedler. 2004a. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455-464. Kercher, S.M., Q.J. Carpenter, and J.B. Zedler. 2004c. Interrelationships of hydrologic disturbance, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), and native plants in Wisconsin wet meadows. Natural Areas Journal 24: 316-325. Organ, J. 1960. Rare Vegetables for Garden and Table. Faber and Faber, London, U.K. Plants for a Future: Edible, medicinal, and useful plants for a healthier world. 1996. Web. October 2008. <http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Carum+carvi>. 84 Reinhardt Adams, C., and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2008. The transition from invasive species control to native species promotion and its dependence on seed density thresholds. Applied Vegetation Science 11:131-138. Seitz, B., and D. Cooper. 2009. Restoring Ethnobotanically Significant Species at Grand Portage National Monument. Contract between GRPO and UW-Madison. See scope of work (below). Tumbledown Farm. ―Jerusalem artichokes (sunchokes)‖. 2009. Web. October 2008. <http://www.tumbledownfarm.com/drupal/Farming_Gardening_Tips/Jerusalem_Artichok es_Sunchokes>. USDA (USDA, NRCS PLANTS Database). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. n.d. Web. March 2011. <http://plants.usda.gov/>. White, D. 2002. Growth and clonal integration of sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana. Wild Rice Recipes from Minnesota. 1999. Web. October 2009. <http://www.brownielocks.com/wildrice.html>. WIRCWG (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group). 2009. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners and Restoration Professionals. Available online. <http://www.ipaw.org/invaders/reed_canary_grass/RCG- management.pdf>. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). ―Reed Canary Grass Factsheet‖. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 2006. Available online. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/floramw/species/phalarun.htm>. 85 Scope of work: Restoring ethnobotanically significant species at Grand Portage National Monument Principal Investigator (PI): Joy B. Zedler, Professor of Botany and Aldo Leopold Chair in Restoration Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 302 Birge Hall, 608-262-8629, firstname.lastname@example.org NPS Project Manager: David Cooper, Chief of Resource Management, Grand Portage National Monument, 170 Mile Creek Rd., Grand Portage, MN 55605, 218-387-2788, email@example.com Introduction and Background: Plants that were demonstrably introduced during the fur trade era or were historically used by the indigenous Ojibwe culture into recent times are part of the historic, cultural landscape the Monument seeks to preserve. Consequently, some "exotics" for which we have conclusive evidence were introduced during the fur trade era or were historically "domesticated" by Ojibwe residents are a public trust and must be preserved. While substantial scientifically rigorous data exist on the management of fire, disturbance and invasive species in a native landscape, very few data exist on management of fire, cultural disturbance and invasive species in a cultural landscape interspersed with species that are ethnobotanically significant to GRPO such as sweet grass (Hierochloe hirta), jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), wild chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum) and caraway (Carum carvi). To overcome these uncertainties, this project will use adaptive restoration, a scientifically formalized process of ‗learn by doing‘. Adaptive restoration begins by identifying what needs to be known to restore a place (Zedler and Callaway 2003, Zedler 2005). Key questions are then addressed through the design of testable field experiments formulated to accomplish restoration objectives. This approach to resource management will be facilitated through an intensely cooperative process of experimental design with Joy Zedler as primary investigator. Resource managers at GRPO will then take advantage of this scientifically rigorous experimental design by testing a number of different management techniques. As management techniques are tested, a natural progression through the adaptive restoration model will accomplish resource management objectives. This work is critical as changes in the environment of the lakeshore unit at GRPO have led to a significant alteration in the conditions that once fostered the persistence of these ethnobotanically significant species. Where these species were once found to be vigorous, they are now being lost to a litany of potential factors including: thatch accumulation, cumulative anthropogenic hydrological adjustments, succession, invasive species encroachment and allelopathic pollens and functions. As these negative factors accumulate, these plant species held in public trust by GRPO are increasingly under-represented within a cultural landscape still frequented by the indigenous people that created it. It is critical that GRPO respond to this management problem proactively with sound, scientifically rigorous management techniques to ensure that in the future it is not forced to react to local extirpation. 86 Objectives: 1) Synthesize ethnobotanical and natural histories of: sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata), jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), wild chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum) and caraway (Carum carvi). 2) Synthesize natural histories of species integral to adaptive restoration such as: sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata), jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), wild chives (Allium schoenoprasum var. sibiricum) and caraway (Carum carvi), Greene‘s rush (Juncus greenei), vasey‘s rush (Juncus vaseyi), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)). 3) Document and map the presence, abundance and distribution of aforementioned species in a GIS. 4) Develop an experimental design for restoring and managing desired species. 5) Prepare a comprehensive report that documents the adaptive restoration experimental design, ethnobotanical and natural histories of plants, methodology, rationale, results, analysis, discussion and recommendations for future vegetation management. Methods: Described as ―learning while doing‖, adaptive restoration is an approach to resource management that is highly cooperative and depends on new information garnered from the research and testing of each phase in the adaptive restoration model. An ArcGIS baseline map will be developed cooperatively with the PI in order to document existing conditions in the field. The PI will design a scientifically rigorous sampling methodology to lead GRPO resource management staff, a local botanist and a graduate student in the collection of all data necessary for the map. GRPO staff will provide labor, data, and equipment to develop the map, and NPS Great Lakes Network (GLKN) staff will process and document GPS data collected in the field so it is NPS compliant metadata. NPS GPS data will be used to attribute each component of the map such as microtopography and distributions of: sweetgrass, chives, caraway, Jerusalem artichoke, reed canary grass, Canada thistle, trefoil, shrub cover and exotic vetch. With the assistance of a local botanist employed at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a graduate student, the PI will lead GRPO resource management staff in the collection of detailed field data on sweetgrass assemblages. NPS staff will work with the PI collecting field data and will provide equipment necessary to spatially attribute the data. Field data will provide the basis for GRPO‘s experimental planting of sweetgrass with and/or without associated species. Data analysis and interpretation will be conducted by the PI with assistance from the GRPO Resource Assistant. The PI and GRPO staff will cooperatively develop an experimental design for adaptive restoration management. GRPO resource management staff will make final decisions on the prescription of chemical, cultural and mechanical treatments. GRPO staff will work with the PI and graduate students to develop a comprehensive suite of potential treatments and management recommendations based on scientific literature review conducted by graduate students under the direction of the PI, and ethnographic interviews conducted by GRPO staff. These treatments and recommendations will be initially vetted by GRPO through an internal determination of management constraints. GRPO staff will then assist the PI in further directing graduate student participants in providing scientific justifications for inclusion or exclusion of remaining experimental treatments. Based on results, treatments will be reassessed and those found to be compatible with successful restoration of sweetgrass and other ethnobotanically significant species will be incorporated into an experimental design for adaptive restoration 87 management. The GRPO archeologist will be present during all ground disturbance associated with data collection in the field to maintain strict cultural resource protection and compliance. Timeline: The project commences spring 2009. Protocols, maps and experimental treatment recommendations will be presented in a draft report for review by Aug. 30, 2011. The park will have two weeks to review and comment, after which time the primary investigator will have two weeks to revise the draft and present the final report by Sept. 30, 2011. The investigator is encouraged to present the draft sooner than Aug. 30, 2011 if time permits. Products: Primary products for the project include: ArcGIS baseline map of microtopography showing distributions of: sweetgrass, chives, caraway, Jerusalem artichoke, reed canary grass, Canada thistle, trefoil, shrub cover and exotic vetch. Detailed field data collection, analysis and interpretation on sweetgrass assemblages (i.e., associated species) for the purpose of testing replanting with and/or without associated species. Recommendations and scientific justification for a suite of experimental chemical, cultural and mechanical treatments aimed at: 1) increasing and subsequently maintaining the population of sweetgrass 2) maintaining without decrease populations of chives, caraway and Jerusalem artichoke 3) decreasing the distribution and extent of reed canary grass, Canada thistle, trefoil, shrub cover, exotic vetch and any other species that may be deemed important by the PI Protocol for monitoring efficacy of experimental chemical, cultural and mechanical treatments and distribution/extent of aforementioned species through time. Experimental results and interpretation of sweetgrass propagation across a moisture gradient. Final report in standard scientific format detailing: literature review, protocol and development, methodology, results, interpretation, and recommendations. An electronic version of the final report must be submitted; text should be in Microsoft Word and data tables in MS Excel or Access. An adobe acrobat pdf file may be submitted in addition to, but not as a substitute for, the MS Word document. In addition, the GLNF CESU host university, University of Minnesota, will receive electronic copies of all related project products upon completion for posting on the GLNF CESU website www.cesu.umn.edu (or the URL where the project is located, whichever is appropriate). Project products will be provided in electronic format to NPS Research Coordinator, Jerrilyn Thompson, Jerrilyn_Thompson@nps.gov References cited in the scope of work: Zedler, J. B., and J. C. Callaway. 2003. Adaptive restoration: A strategic approach for integrating research into restoration projects. Pp. 167-174 in D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E. Rolston, N. O. Nielsen, C. O. Qualset, and A. B. Damania, eds. Managing for Healthy Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Zedler, J. B. 2005. Restoring wetland plant diversity: A comparison of existing and adaptive approaches. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:5-14.
Pages to are hidden for
"An Adaptive Approach to"Please download to view full document