This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: planning parameters

Theresa:
	My undergraduate and masters education has dealt with issues in
natural resource management/range ecology/conservation
biology.  I'd like to offer a few thoughts I had in reference to some
of your questions.  These thoughts are based on what I've been exposed to
in the literature, in classes, discussions with various people, and
my own experience doing research and dabbling in restorations.  
	For all practical purposes, the size of every prairie
preserve is going to be a limiting factor for some component of a prairie
system.  You're probably familiar with species area curves and their
implications for biotic composition. Patches smaller than one acre won't
support as many plant species as patches ten acres in size.  Patches that
are ten acres won't support some of the bird species that will be found on
50 acre preserves.  And 50 acre preserves may still be too small for large
wild herbivores (bison, elk, etc) to influence the system in a manner that
may differ from the effects of highly managed domestic herbivores
(cattle).
	Nonbiotic components would be altered by size as well. The
effects of fire on a patch one acre in size may be very uniform, where
essentially everything is burned to the same degree. The effects of
fire on a preserve that is hundreds of acres in size should result in
various areas being burned and unburned (a management decision), and
burned areas themselves would have variation within them depending on fuel
load, topography, etc.  
	I'm inclined to think that bigger is better as
well, but you have to make do with what you have, and small prairie
patches can be very valuable in their own right.  Even though small
patches will support only a fraction of the biota that would be found in a
large preserve, they can be very usefull in an educational setting such as
what you are dealing with.  Not only is the public educated by these
re-creations/restorations, but I know that I've learned a great deal
about prairie ecology, as well as developed a deep appreciation for
prairies, by becoming intimately familiar with some very small parcels of
land.
	If I were able to dictate the shape of a re-creation/restoration,
I would do so in a manner that facilitated easy management.  A nice square
shape, or circular, would be easier for me to conduct a burn on than
something with numerous lobes extending everywhere.  But I can understand
how many people would find a nice square shape not very visually pleasing.
A square shape would definately be easier to fence so horses or cattle
could be used to manage the vegetation.  Square would also be easier to
cut and bale hay on.  In terms of minimizing edge, on small patches the
whole thing may be considered an edge.  Again, I think you have to make do
with what you have to work with. 
	My philosophical approach to the establishment of a 
re-creation/restoration would dictate that I would only do such work on an
area that was historically prairie.  If an area was historically forest,
I couldn't justify a prairie restoration at such a site, but I am aware of
several arguments that others might use to justify it.  
	I'm inclined to think that all the literature about patch/preserve
size, edge effects are usefull up to a certain point, especially in
understanding how patches/preserves fuction.  But I would caution against
getting hung up on notions about the "ideal" design.  So many of these
issues are decided already by pre-existing land use patterns. And no
matter how a patch/preserve is situated within any given context, we
should be able to find how it differs in some way from another
patch/preserve or standard of reference, and then place a value judgement
on whether it's inferior/superiority.  Trying to make everything identical
to a standard of refernce reduces variability, and that may be a
serious problem as well. Hope this helps.

Steve

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Theresa Mau wrote:

> Hello All,
> I am working on my master's thesis at Western Mich. U. and my project is
> to help the local nature center here determine where on their property
> would be the best place to restore a portion of tallgrass prairie.  I've
> 
> anyone personally estabilished a minimum size for a viable prairie?  I
> keep reading that "bigger is better" and that even a tiny plot can be
> started, so maybe min. size is not something to fuss over.

> Lastly, what about shape?  I've read a lot about round, compact reserves
> being best to minimize edge effects, but newer preserve articles are
> reccomending lobed patches.  This research has mainly been in the area
> of forest, though, as far as I can tell.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index