Restoring Native Prairie Habitat in a
Suburban Campus Landscape
Leanna DeJong and Dr. Dave Warners, Calvin College
Increased human development has decreased native
landscapes and biodiversity. One way to combat this
loss is to establish native habitats in urban areas that
provide many benefits, including:
· Storm water and erosion control
· Pollinator attraction
· Wildlife habitat
· Trophic support
· Genetic diversity enhancer
· Aesthetic pleaser
· Decreased fossil fuel use
· Decreased herbicide and pesticide use
Fig 1. Bumblebee pollinating Wild Senna.
Conclusions
Methods
Introduction
Prince Prairie History
An experimental short grass prairie was established on
Calvin's campus north of the Prince Conference Center
during the summer of 2013. The prairie contains 60
half-meter square quadrats with different soil and till
treatments, the goal being to determine which
treatment allows for the most successful growth for
each of the five focal species. It was hypothesized that
the rototilled treatment with the most sand would
support optimal growth for these dry prairie species.
Location
Table 2. Summary table of p-values for all species’ measurements that were
significant in 2014 and 2015 (α=0.05 in black, α=0.10 in purple).
Year-to-Year Plot Growth
2013
Fig. 9. Quadrat 8 when it was initially planted in 2013.
Sand: Compost Ratio
Liatris scariosa and Carex brevior grew better in
sandier soils in 2014 and 2015.
2014
Fig. 2. Turtle Laying Eggs in the Prairie.
Fig. 10. Quadrat 8 after one year of growth. Each
quadrat was planted with Liatris scariosa (top right),
Schizachyrium scoparium (top left), Rosa carolina
(center), Coreopsis lanceolata (bottom left), and Carex
brevior (bottom right).
Focal Species
2015
Fig. 8. Prairie Location outlined in green along the south-west corner of Prince
Pond.
Plot Treatments
Survivorship
Rosa carolina is a hardy plant that survives well
regardless of soil treatment. Coreopsis
lanceolata, which did not do well the second year
of growth, seems to be either more of a biennial
plant or prefers more open, un-crowded growing
conditions.
Table 1. Breakdown of test plot treatments.
Fig. 3. Rosa carolina (Pasture Rose):
heights, shoot number, bud number.
Sand:Compost
Ratio
90:10
70:30
Rototilled
Un-tilled
10 plots
10 plots
10 plots
10 plots
50:50
10 plots
10 plots
Fig. 11. Quadrat 8 after two years of growth.
Fig. 4. Carex brevior
(Brevior’s Sedge): height,
base area, culm number.
Liatris scariosa Liatris scariosa 150 b
Height 2015 # Shoots a
2 1 100 b
100 a
roto2lled 0 0 Fig. 12. Liatris scariosa showed a significant difference between the rototill and unrototill treatments for height and # shoots (1-way ANOVA, α=0.05). The # leaves
was significant at α=0.10.
b
a
Carex brevior 80 p2014=0.71932 ab
150 a
ab
b
60 50 Coreopsis lanceolata p2015=0.009094 Rosa carolina 20 Liatris scariosa 10 0 50:50 70:30 90:10 50:50 70:30 90:10 Sand:Compost Ra=o Sand:Compost Ra=o Fig. 13. Liatris scariosa and Carex brevior showed significant differences between
the sand: compost ratio treatments for average number of survivors and height
respectively (1-way ANOVA, α=0.07).
40 Fig. 15. Prince Prairie summer 2015.
30 100 50 70 Schizachyrium scoparium Carex brevior Height (cm) Average Number of Survivors Fig. 7. Liatris scariosa
(Northern Blazing Star):
height, leaf number, bud
number.
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 90 unroto2lled 50 Liatris scariosa Fig. 8. Coreopsis lanceolata (Sand
Coreopsis): height, base area, bud number.
Results
Survivorship (%) 3 Fig. 6. Schizachyrium
scoparium (Little Bluestem):
height, base area.
Rototilled/Un-tilled
Growth was species and year dependent for
rototilling. In 2014, Coreopsis lanceolata preferred
rototilled soil while Liatris scariosa and Little
Bluestem preferred non-rototilled soil. However,
in 2015 only Liatris scariosa preferred unrototilled
soil. Thus, it seems that rototilling is more
important in the first year of growth for Coreopsis
lanceolata and Schizachyrium scoparium while
Liatris scariosa prefers rototilling during both the
first and second years of growth.
2013 2014 0 2015 Year Fig. 14. Different species had significantly different survivorships
from each other in 2015, but not in 2014 (α=0.05).
Acknowledgements
Deanna Geelhoed, Kara Smit, Micah Warners,
Kristen Hoogstra, Jessica Kim, Ian Noyes and Katey
Westergren helped with planting and data collection.