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

Re:

My first questions are: Is it native prairie? or is it a native grass
planting in which he is wanting to increase the diversity?

If it is a native prairie I would not be very comfortable with the notion of
discing it. Varying the timing of burning can greatly effect the number and
diversity of forbs in a native prairie. Try late summer or winter burns to
increase diversity. Stay away from late spring burns that favor the grasses.

If it is a native grass planting, disc away. It is important to remember
that the discing should be shallow and not agressive. Be sure he understands
that it should be disced only 3 to 4 inches deep, not the same as for ag
crops. One or two passes is all that is needed. The idea is to disturb the
soil not turn it over. Discing a native planting will most likely only
stimulate annual broadleaves unless other forbs were planted and formerly
present before the grasses consumed them. Another key point to keep in mind
is not to disc it all in one year. It might be best to try a test plot to
see if it creates the desired results before going all out.

In native grass plantings in CRP, discing significantly improves the
diversity. Fall discing is best but discing anytime is better than not.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Louis Winter <swinter@ksu.edu>
To: prairie@mallorn.com <prairie@mallorn.com>
Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:53 PM


>Prairie enthusiasts:
> I have done some restoration work and collected seed at a prairie
>remnant at a State Recreation Area in southeast Nebraska.  Recently I had
>a phone conversation with the Superintendent of the area, and he inquired
>about disking as a method of increasing forbs.  Thinking back on the
>conversation I don't remember if it was in reference to a treatment for
>prairies or for any grassy area, but I assumed it was in reference to
>prairies because that's what we were talking about.
> I have heard of disking by game agencies as a means of increasing
>stem densities, usually with the intent of benefitting upland gamebirds.
>Apparently the disks are positioned vertically so they only cut into the
>ground without ripping or turning the sod/soil.  I can understand
>rhizomatous species responding to this treatment in a positive manner, but
>I would think it would be disastrous for taprooted species.
> Does anyone have any information/experience with this type of
>manipulation?  I sent a letter to the superintendent accompanied by some
>literature.  I thought members of this list would be interested in it so
>it is included below.  The articles I sent him are:
>
>Davison and Kindscher. 1999. Tools for diversity: fire, grazing and mowing
> on tallgrass prairies. Ecological Restoration 17:136-143.
>
>Collins, Knapp, Briggs, Blair and Steinauer. 1998. Modulation of
> diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie.
> Science 280:745-747.
>
>Collins and Steinauer. 1998. Disturbance, diversity, and species
> interactions in tallgrass prairie.  Pages 140-158 in Grassland
> Dynamics:long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie, edited by
> Knapp, Briggs, Hartnett and Collins. Oxford University Press, New
> York.
>
>Hartnett, Hickman and Walter. 1996. Effects of bison grazing, fire, and
> topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. Journal of
> Range Management 49:413-420.
>
>Howe. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie:assumptions
> and implications. Conservation Biology 8:691-704.
>
>Howe. 1994. Response of early- and late-flowering plants to fire season in
> experimental prairies. Ecological Applications 4:121-133.
>
>Howe. 1999. Dominance, diversity and grazing in tallgrass restoration.
> Ecological Restoration 17:59-66.
>
>Hulbert. 1988. Causes of fire effects in tallgrass prairie. Ecology
> 69:46-58.
>
>Knapp, Blair, Briggs, Collins, Hartnett, Johnson and Towne. 1999. The
> keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. Bioscience
> 49:39-50.
>
>Towne and Owensby. 1984. Long-term effects of annual burning at different
> dates in ungrazed Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range
> Management 37:392-397.
>
>Dear Jay:
> Here's some more literature.  Your question about disking as a
>method of increasing forbs prompted me to find these articles.  They all
>tend to discuss the effects of various treatments (burn date, mowing,
>grazing) on plant diversity.  The general theme is:
>
> 1) tallgrass prairie is characterized as a community dominated by
>warm season grasses (C4 grasses), especially big bluestem, a wide variety
>of less abundant forb species, and few woody plants.
> 2) tallgrass prairie diversity is a function of both the total
>number of species and the abundance of the most dominant species (big
>bluestem).  The total number of species is primarily determined by the
>number of forb species.
>4) spring burning is necessary to maintain tallgrass prairie in its
>characteristic state.
> 5) spring burning benefits big bluestem greatly, at the expense of
>many other species, because big bluestem can out-compete many other
>species.
> 6) treatments that are detrimental to big bluestem may benefit
>other species because the treatments reduce the competitive effect of big
>bluestem.
>
> One thing to keep in mind though, is that none of the articles
>really discuss what the effects of any of the treatments are on
>"conservative species" of forbs (or conservative grasses and sedges for
>that matter).  Conservative species are generally thought of as those
>species that you typically find only in medium to high quality prairie
>remnants.  Part of the motivation for restoring and preserving prairie
>remnants is to protect species that may require those areas to exist.
>Conversely, non-conservative species are found in numerous areas such as
>road ditches, agricultural fields, CRP fields, and just about anywhere
>else you might look.  Because non-conservative species tend to be common
>in numerous areas, and they often thrive in human-altered landscapes, they
>typically aren't considered appropriate targets of conservation
>activities.
> Consider a hypothetical scenario where a person determined that a
>prairie remnant was characterized by low diversity and that person wished
>to increase the diversity of that remnant.  A relevant example would be
>the prairie on the east side of Twin Lakes WMA, which is primarily a
>grassland with very few forbs relative to many other prairie remnants.
>That person applied a treatment (summer burning, grazing or mowing), and
>the response was an increase in the abundance of forbs.  Technically
>diversity has been increased.  But a closer examination revealed that only
>two forbs increased in abundance, western ragweed and common milkweed.
> Western ragweed and common milkweed are undeniably prairie
>species.  They are found in most prairies and often in high abundance.
>But they are also found in just about every other non-prairie habitat that
>doesn't have a canopy of trees.  The question then is: has anything been
>accomplished that has increased the quality of that prairie, or has
>prairie conservation as a whole been advanced?  There are valid arguments
>that can be made from many perspectives in answer to that question.  If
>the treatment that was applied resulted in an increased abundance of wild
>indigo, gentian, compass plant, or even prairie fringed orchid (a T & E
>listed species), I would argue that the quality of that prairie has
>increased, and prairie conservation has been advanced.  These are species
>that are considered "conservative" and typically are not found in habitats
>other than prairie remnants.
> To repeat what we discussed on the phone, I have my doubts about
>disking as a method of prairie restoration or management.  I have never
>seen it advocated in the restoration literature, I have only heard about
>it being used by game agencies as a way of manipulating gamebird habitat.
>I doubt there is any documentation of its effects on "conservative"
>prairie species, because I think I would have run across that
>documentation by now.  I do not doubt that there are species that would
>respond positively to such a treatment, but I am inclined to think they
>would be weedy, "non-conservative" species.  I am also inclined to think
>that many conservative species would be harmed by the treatment.  Any
>taprooted plant that has its taproot severed would probably die.
> I hope you find the enclosed literature usefull, and if you're
>interested in any additional materials, let me know.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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