1

IS PATCH-BURN GRAZING DAMAGING

MISSOURI’S NATIVE PRAIRIE?

DON KURZ

November 2010

SUMMARY

The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) has recently embarked on a potentially

damaging prairie management technique, the success of which is measured by weight gain of

cattle, variation in vegetation structure, and use by grassland birds. This procedure, Patch-Burn

Grazing (PBG), applies burning in patches, which attracts grazing cattle that in turn creates

vegetation structure attractive to some grassland birds. The technique is said to have no lasting

impact on prairie vegetation composition. However, PBG was developed on Oklahoma

grasslands that previously had a century of cattle grazing, followed by treatments with broadleaf

herbicides. This prior treatment obfuscates interpretation of how PBG impacts high quality

prairies. The recent application of PBG on high quality prairies in Missouri has been poorly

studied and interpreted, but the research is being used to justify its ongoing application. This

report reviews those studies and the potential impacts on continued PBG application to high

quality prairies.

─ Niawathe Prairie Natural Area, Dade County, Missouri was one of the PBG study areas. This

was one of Missouri’s flagship public prairies known for its high natural quality.

─Niawathe Prairie and Taberville Prairie, two of the five prairies used in the PBG study, are

state designated natural areas that represent some of the best, and last, examples of the state’s

original natural landscape. These natural areas represent fragments of formerly widespread

grasslands, and may not recover from grazing impacts.

─ Of the 15 million acres of prairie that once covered approximately one-third of Missouri, less

than one percent (fewer than 90,000 acres) remains intact. These remnants are priceless

examples of an imperiled ecosystem and an example of the state's natural heritage. They must be

protected and not used in short-term experiments. Priorities are askew in comparison to MDC’s

Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP), a 100-year study on a thriving, expanding

forest. Missouri has 14 million acres of forest land, and ranks seventh out of the 20 northeastern

states in the amount of forested acreage.

2

─Livestock overgrazing is well known for its damaging effect on vegetation, causing declines of

plants sought after by cattle and an increase in unpalatable plants, including alien and invasive

species. No comparative data have been used to support stocking rates on the PBG treatments on

Missouri prairies.

─Livestock grazing can also increase soil erosion and cause adverse water quality impacts from

increased runoff from the animal’s urine and feces. Antibiotics administered to cattle are readily

absorbed by plants from the cattle’ manure. Whether this is causing damage to insect herbivores,

pollinators, and others in the prairie ecosystem is unknown.

─ The original PBG report provided little useful information on either bird or vegetation

responses to grazing. Its most important finding was an average 17.46 bird species occurring on

burn vs. 20.17 species on the burn + graze units. However, almost 80% of the birds occurring

only in the grazing units are not prairie birds

─ The study did not consider the size of the five prairies studied and how nest predation and

brood parasitism might have influenced the monitoring results, nor did it include demographic

information, such as nesting attempts and nesting success.

─ Cattle grazing impacts on plant abundance are greatly influenced by stocking rates and

duration, factors that were overlooked in the Missouri study.

─During the four-year monitoring program, there was no analysis of individual plant species

abundance between grazed and ungrazed treatments.

─ Given the short duration of the MDC study and the methods of analysis used, the results are

not all that clear. It is also unknown whether the conclusion that PBG does not significantly

impact the vegetative community would remain valid when compared to a longer term study.

Don Kurz has had over 30 years of experience inventorying prairies and recruiting, training and

supervising staff to monitor and evaluate prairies. He was Natural History Lands Specialist for the MDC,

responsible for a comprehensive county-by-county Natural Features Inventory to locate the best

remaining examples of our natural heritage, including a complete survey of the state’s prairies. He has

also examined and evaluated tallgrass prairies throughout the ecosystem’s 13-state range. He coordinated

acquisition of high quality natural areas, including prairies, for the state of Missouri, which involved

setting acquisition priorities, evaluating areas, preparing acquisition proposals and Conservation

Commission actions, and working with area managers to set management goals. This acquisition work

resulted in state-wide protection of 80 special sites totaling 17,020 acres, including acquisition of 25

prairies totaling 5,710 acres. He also served on the Missouri Natural Areas Committee and the Missouri

Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project's long-range task force.

─Don Kurz, Jefferson City, MO; dkurz@socket.net

3

INTRODUCTION

Yet the more we love this place as it is, the more we feel the pain of what it so recently was. The

wild prairie ecosystem is gone. And this tragedy is compounded by the realization that we don’t

even know exactly what it is that we have lost.

─ Candace Savage (2004)

At the time of European settlement, approximately 360 million acres of shortgrass, mixed-grass,

and tallgrass prairie spread across the mid-continent from Canada to Mexico, stretching from the

foot of the Rocky Mountains to the great deciduous forests of the East. Today, these native

grasslands have been plowed, paved, overgrazed, and drained into mere fragments of their

former selves.

One group of animals that has suffered greatly from this process is prairie birds. Three out of

four grassland bird species have declined in abundance over the last 30 years, and these birds

have exhibited the steepest population declines of any North American birds (Nickens 2010). In

an effort to benefit prairie birds, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), initiated a

program known as Patch-Burn Grazing (PBG). Developed on the western edge of the tallgrass

prairie in the Flint Hills of Oklahoma, PBG applies burning in rotated patches, where grazing

creates variability in vegetation structure that provides improved habitat for grassland birds

(Jamison and Underwood 2008).

The basis for MDC’s PBG program comes from a four-year (2005 to 2008) study (Jamison and

Underwood 2008) conducted on five prairies owned by MDC and/or The Nature Conservancy

(TNC). This report questions the methodology and findings of that study.

4

Using overgrazed prairie as unreliable benchmarks

Resolved, that none of us know, or care to know, anything about grasses, native or otherwise,

outside the fact that for the present there are lots of them, the best on record, and we are after

getting the most out of them while they last.

─A resolution by a West Texas cattleman's organization in 1898 quoted in Paul Shepard's book

Nature and Madness.

Much of the early PBG research was conducted in Oklahoma (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001,

2004), a state that has had a long history of prairies being grazed by cattle. Unfortunately, little

information about past grazing history and its effect on prairies appears in PBG studies. Daniel

Licht (1997) wrote, ―The factors responsible for the destruction of the grassland ecosystem have

been so multi-pronged and so interconnected that it is difficult to know where an examination of

them should start.‖ It is important to understand the past use of these study sites, so one can get a

better understanding of how to interpret and apply the results of PBG. For example:

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, Oklahoma

In 1989, The Nature Conservancy purchased the 30,000-acre Barnard Ranch in the southern part

of the Flint Hills. This acquisition became the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, the largest remaining

protected prairie. The vast prairie landscape is an incredible sight but, unfortunately, it is mostly

grass, with little forb diversity. The area, as has most of Oklahoma’s prairies, been subjected to

well over 100 years of moderate to intense grazing by cattle along with late spring burns. This

has resulted in a landscape where the number (richness) and abundance (population size of

species) of plants and animals typically found on ungrazed or high quality prairies are greatly

reduced. The resulting difference between the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and a high quality

prairie in Missouri is obvious even to the amateur prairie enthusiast. In addition, the 30,000 acres

was aerial sprayed with a broadleaf herbicide prior to the rancher’s selling the property to TNC.

This information is not found in TNC’s brochures nor is it mentioned in published studies except

in Hamilton (2007): ―Aerial application of broadleaf herbicides on a 4- to 5-year rotation was

practiced since the 1950s until the ranch was purchased by the Conservancy, and is still a

common regional range management practice.‖ The chemicals triclopyr and 2,4-D were

commonly applied for woody brush control and broadleaf plants (forbs) (Nelson, 1978).

In 1993, I was asked to consult on a film for the National Geographic Society using TNC’s

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve for the film location. The producer and principal cinematographer,

Maryan Smith, was having trouble finding sites on the preserve to film showy aspects of the

prairie. There were plenty of grasses but the forbs were few and far between. With the assistance

of Tom Toney, MDC’s prairie biologist, we located suitable areas on some MDC prairies where

they could film. Later, I visited the film crew at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and was amazed at

how few forbs there were on the prairie. Another visit to the preserve this past July 2010 (17

years later), revealed little improvement in the diversity and abundance of the forbs. And, in

most areas of the vast prairie, the undesirable nonnative white sweet clover had become a

dominant forb.

5

The filming was a success and resulted in a National Geographic Explorer special called ―Fire

and Thunder.‖ It aired June 25, 1995, on the TBS Superstation. Had not some of Missouri’s high

quality prairies been available, the film wouldn’t have been able to showcase one of the most

outstanding features of the tallgrass prairie.

Konza Prairie, Kansas

The 8,600-acre Konza Prairie also has a grazing history. It was purchased by The Nature

Conservancy in 1977 and deeded to the Division of Biology, Kansas State University for

operation as a Biological Station and long-term ecological research site. Unlike the Tallgrass

Prairie Preserve, this preserve is now grazed by bison. However, the preserve was once part of

the 10,000-acre Dewey Ranch, which was acquired and operated by C.P. Dewey and his son,

Chauncey, from 1872 to 1926. The prairie has had a long history of cattle grazing including

Dewey annually buying cattle in Texas and shipping them by rail to stockyards on the east side

of Manhattan, Kansas. From there they were driven and kept at the ranch, as many as 2,000 at a

time (Konza Prairie Biological Station 2010).

The histories of both of these research prairies illustrate an important factor. Over 100 years of

moderate to heavy grazing by confined cattle sets an unnatural baseline that is not taken into

account when conducting present research on the flora and fauna of the site. Critical questions

are: What was the composition of such prairies before extensive cattle grazing, how do they

compare with ungrazed prairies, and how do their current conditions affect the results of grazing

research? For example, might positive responses of species (to grazing) that have been selected

by a century of grazing give the impression that grazing has a positive effect on prairie? The

same question applies to species that have been selected by frequent aerial spraying with

broadleaf herbicides.

Grazing and the natural quality of prairies

Survey work for grading prairie vegetation was pioneered by Dr. Robert F. Betz and first applied

statewide by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, and subsequently in Indiana and in Missouri.

Quality grades are based on vegetation composition linked with evidence of human disturbance.

Grade A represents undisturbed late successional vegetation, grade B represents moderately

disturbed mid-successional, grade C heavily disturbed early successional, and grade D very

heavily disturbed early successional (White 1978). These grades also correspond to levels of

species richness, with grade A prairies having greatest small scale species richness, and fewer

alien plants (Bowles and Jones 2006). Multiple human factors may cause these changes,

including soil disturbance, herbicide application, and fire protection. A primary disturbance

affecting grades is the intensity and duration of past grazing by cattle, which is well known for

its effect on "increaser" and "decreaser" plant species (e.g., Drew 1947). Research in western

tallgrass prairie with a grazing history, such as Konza, suggests that grazing may select for

increasing species richness (Knapp et al. 1998). In reference to the natural quality of the

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and Konza Prairie, both are grade C (Kurz, pers. obs.).

6

Ungrazed prairies as benchmarks

Table 1. Size in acres of Missouri prairies being impacted by patch-burn grazing.

Site Name Owner Grazing Unit Control Unit

Bethel Prairie Conservation Area

Hi Lonesome Prairie Conservation Area

Niawathe Prairie Natural Area

Taberville Prairie Natural Area

Wah’Kon-Tah Prairie

MDC

MDC

MDC/TNC

MDC

MDC/TNC

154

262

173

242

243

104

213

145

218

240

Niawathe Prairie Natural Area, Missouri:

“Niawathe” means “the life giver” in the Osage Indian language, and in spring and early

summer Missouri’s Niawathe Prairie gives life to fields of pale purple coneflowers.

─John Madson (1993)

Niawathe Prairie Natural Area, Dade County, Missouri was one of the PBG study areas (See

Table 1). This is (was) one of Missouri’s flagship public prairies with 160 acres owned by MDC

and 160 acres by TNC. The prairie has a recent history of hay mowing and burning. The north 80

acres had a natural quality rating of grade A, the central 160 acres had zones of grade A and B,

and the south 80 acres was grade C. The latter unit has lower forb richness and abundance

suggesting that a broadleaf herbicide was used by a previous owner (Toney 2010). A review of

MDC’s Missouri Natural Features Inventory for the five prairies in the PBG study would have

found a range of natural quality ratings from grades A to C-. These differences in composition

and quality might confound interpretation of PBG effects.

Niawathe Prairie was widely known by prairie enthusiasts and professional researchers as an

exceptional prairie with areas of high natural quality and scenic appeal (Fig. 1, 2, 3, and 4). This

prairie was one of only a few MDC prairies that were selected for ―Prairie Days,‖ a special

annual event that was conducted for a decade or so to celebrate the beauty and diversity of the

prairie ecosystem. The public was invited for a day on the prairie with interpretive walks, living

history reenactments, and featured specialists with live prairie animals. Niawathe Prairie was a

special place that generated amazement and inspiration in those that appreciate high quality

prairies.

7

Fig. 1. Niawathe Prairie pre-PBG with coneflowers. (Photo taken June 1995)

Fig. 2. Niawathe Prairie showing PBG results with a solitary coneflower and an

abundance of ashy sunflowers, an increaser. (Photo taken June 7, 2010)

8

Fig. 3. Niawathe Prairie pre-PBG with tall blazing stars. (Photo taken July 1995)

Fig. 4. Niawathe Prairie PBG results showing no tall blazing stars (Photo taken July 10, 2010)

9

State Designated Natural Areas:

Niawathe Prairie and Taberville Prairie are two of the five prairies used in the PBG study. Both

are state designated natural areas. Natural areas represent some of the best, and last, examples of

the state’s original natural landscape, each offering an exemplary model of Missouri’s

outstanding biological and geological features. They are special places where native vegetation

remains in a relatively undisturbed condition with many to most of their biological constituents

and processes intact.

Natural areas are repositories of genetic diversity contained in plants and animals that have high

scientific value, and may one day reveal important medical or economic values as well. Natural

areas provide important ―living laboratories‖ and ―outdoor classrooms‖ for scientists and

teachers to use for research and teaching. They provide ecological benchmarks and seed sources

for restoration projects of already degraded land. Many natural areas provide essential habitat for

species of conservation concern. Natural areas are important sites that protect remnants of the

state's natural heritage for aesthetic, scientific, and even economic reasons (Missouri Department

of Conservation 2010b).

The future of Niawathe Prairie Natural Area is uncertain (Fig. 5). The north end, which is (was)

grade A, will be subjected to its third year (2011) of grazing following the PBG study (Hedges

2010, Leahy 2010). This strategy does not follow the recommended management cycle for PBG

sites. There is a concern that too much responsibility is being given to area managers that may

not be aware or understand what a healthy functioning prairie ecosystem looks like. This lack of

understanding is reinforced by MDC’s maintaining a low priority interest in doing research on

what the ideal rest period is for grazing-sensitive prairie plant species, or the impact on possibly

sensitive insect species (i.e., prairie mole cricket), or possibly sensitive stream biota, or

acceptable soil bulk density values. These data gaps in using PBG are given low priority for

future study (Leahy and Underwood 2010). It also apparently gives an inappropriate message to

prairie visitors and adjacent landowners that repeated grazing is an acceptable conservation

management strategy. Niawathe Prairie, like all fragmented prairies, can be compared to an

island but instead of being surrounded by an ocean, the prairie is bordered by a sea of crop fields,

roads, and pastures. Some plants and animals may have been stressed beyond recovery. A four-

year study may not provide enough information to assess such damage.

10

Fig. 5. The future of Niawathe Prairie Natural Area is uncertain. (Photo taken June 7, 2010)

Endangered Prairie Ecosystem:

Every American has the right as part of his cultural heritage to stand in grass as high as his

head in order to feel some small measure of history coursing his veins and personally establish

an aesthetic bond with the past.

─William H. Elder (1961) Needs and Problems of Grassland Preservation

Of the 15 million acres of prairie that once covered approximately one-third of Missouri, a 1999

estimate stated that fewer than 90,000 acres or less than 0.6 of one percent, remains today (Kurz

2003). Compare that to the state’s more than 14 million acres of forest land, which ranks seventh

out of the 20 northeastern states in the amount of forested acreage (Missouri Department of

Conservation 2010a). Priorities are askew when comparing a four-year PBG study on prairie, an

imperiled ecosystem, against a 100-year study on a thriving, expanding forest. MDC’s Missouri

Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project (MOFEP), is one of the most comprehensive ecological

investigations of forest response to timber harvest ever undertaken in upland oak ecosystems.

Unlike the PBG study, great attention has been given to the design and duration of the MOFEP

experiment and to coordination of the numerous associated research studies. In all, scientists are

currently conducting 12 far-reaching studies on MOFEP sites, and new studies will be added

throughout the life of the 100-year project. Some of the research involves examining vegetation

dynamics, downed wood, fungi, birds, small mammals, herpetofauna, invertebrates, and genetics.

Soil, geolandforms, ecological land types, and climate at the sites are also studied (Missouri

Department of Conservation 2007).

11

Such a detailed and long-ranged study has not been initiated on any of North America’s prairies

with the exception of ongoing scientific research on western tallgrass prairie at Konza Prairie.

Konza Prairie is a transitional Flint Hills type of prairie that has a history of heavy grazing by

cattle. A critical question is whether the controversial PBG application, based on short-ranged

and incomplete research, is making major changes to the composition and natural integrity of

many of the best remaining prairies across the prairie region.

PRAIRIE GRAZING

Many of the prairie’s flowers (“forbs” to the botanist) are “decreasers” that cannot tolerate

abuse by plow, cow, and mower. They tend to fade and fail in the course of agribusiness. Rugged

and successful as they are in climax prairie, they may never survive intense land-use

pressures─such as legumes that are avidly sought by livestock. Those plants have withstood

transient bison, but cannot live under the continuous trampling and overgrazing of most modern

pastures. ─John Madson (1993) Tallgrass Prairie

Fig. 6 Niawathe Prairie Natural Area showing impact from PBG. There is little vegetation

structure on this 80-acre TNC tract. (Photo taken July 16, 2009).

12

Bison vs. Cattle:

Native grazers historically inhabiting tallgrass prairie included bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule

deer, and many small vertebrates and invertebrates. The extent to which herbivores, especially

bison, grazed tallgrass prairie is unclear (Steinauer and Collins 1996). The greatest numbers of

bison historically occurred in the mixed grass prairie region (McDonald 1981), and grazing

frequency and intensity were probably greatest in the western portions of the tallgrass prairies

close to the mixed grass region. Some suggest that bison were scarce in the Midwest later in the

summer because of the higher precipitation rates (more than 40 inches per year). Rain is known

to leach nutrients out of the grasses (Whitehead 2000, Schroeder 2010). Grazing in the Great

Plains offered more nutritious grasses due to lower precipitation rates (<20 inches per year)

(Gilmore 2009). One possible scenario for bison grazing in tallgrass prairie is many small

random herds in the dormant and early growing season with the majority migrating to mixed and

short-grass areas as the growing season progressed (Steinauer and Collins 1996). The frequency,

timing, and intensity of grazing by other herbivores in tallgrass prairie are also poorly known.

Bison are primarily graminoid feeders and consume higher proportions of the dominant grasses

than would be predicted based on grass availability in the landscape (Peden et al. 1974, Van

Vuren and Bray 1983, Steuter et al. 1995). Bison tend to avoid forbs and woody species, which

usually constitute less than 10% of their diet. Thus, within a bison grazing area, forbs are often

conspicuously left ungrazed and are surrounded by grazed grasses (Fahnestock and Knapp 1993,

Damhourehey and Hartnett 1997, Plumb and Dodd 1994, Steuter and Hidinger 1999). By grazing

predominantly on grasses and avoiding forbs, bison can increase plant species diversity by

suppressing the dominant grasses and releasing limited resources to a diverse array of forbs

(Steuter and Hidinger 1999).

Bison digest roughage better than cattle do and can subsist on forage of lower protein content,

for example (Truett et al. 2001). Bison, due to their social structure, also spend less time grazing

than cattle and more time in nonfeeding activities (Plumb and Dodd 1993). It is normal for bison

to graze, trample, and wallow at different intensities across landscapes. This creates a mosaic of

vegetative types and elevates plant species diversity. The nature of this mosaic may be altered by

availability of water, topography, previous grazing patterns, and fire (Truett et al. 2001).

Frank Mayer and Charles Roth (1996) described these social units in The Buffalo Harvest, a PBS

documentary. ―Do you remember reading about buffalo herds millions strong, moving in a solid

mass, and stopping trains and wagons? . . . . Of course the herd, this vast mass of animals, would

be under the leadership of a grand old buffalo bull, who would trot serenely at its head, issuing

orders and demanding instant and complete obedience.‖ But as they point out, these are

misconceptions. ―Most of the herds would run from 3 to 60 animals, with an average of around

15. In these small herds the buffalo traveled and fed, scattered over the plains, but each one

separate and apart from the other herds. Whenever they stampeded they did come together and

charged as one vast, solid herd. But when the fright passed they’d separate into their peculiar

small herd formation . . . . (whose) leader wasn’t a bull at all . . . . It was a cow, a sagacious old

cow who by the power of her intellect had made herself a leader. Buffalo society, you see, was a

matriarchy, and the cow was queen.‖

13

Cattle:

Livestock can be used as a management tool, like an AK-47 assault rifle can be used as a

hunting tool. Perhaps theoretically possible, but only with very careful control of the tool. With

either the cow or the assault rifle on fully automatic, bad things happen. At least the gun cannot

walk around and do what a gun does by itself.

─Andy Kerr (2010)

The MDC stocking rate on its public prairies is considered on the low end of the moderate range

(Leahy and Underwood 2010). This sounds relatively safe enough but there are no comparative

data to support light, medium, or heavy stocking rates on Missouri prairies. After reviewing the

before and after photos in this report, it seems appropriate to suggest that more study needs to be

conducted to determine what actually is a preferred stocking rate that meets MDC’s objectives

for prairie bird habitat and still safely accommodates the flora and the rest of the fauna that

constitutes a majority of the prairie ecosystem. One needs to take into consideration that plants

and microhabitats preferred by livestock receive excessive use even with light stocking rates

(Holechek et al. 2000). The most common practices that produce overgrazing are: (a) excessive

animal density on the land, (b) lack of rotation or longer residence time of grazers on a sub-plot

of the landscape unit, and (c) grazing at inappropriate times relative to the flora productivity

cycle (Hogan et al. 2009). Item (b) is claimed by PBG to buffer against this but burn patches may

be too small (or not enough of an attractant) to contain cattle, as they grazed only 64% of the

time in burn units in the MDC study (Jamison and Underwood 2008). In The Vegetation of

Wisconsin, John Curtis (1959) described the behavior of cattle when first put into tallgrass

prairie. Cattle seek out certain forbs ―like hidden candy at a child’s birthday party.‖

It is obvious that without proper land management practices the prairie ecosystem can be

damaged, as well as its biodiversity. Many species of plants and animals live in the tallgrass

prairie, so a disruption in their ecosystem can cause a decrease in the species’ density and

richness. With the loss of high quality prairie, many species especially of animals are at a greater

risk for predation and have a smaller food supply.

Cattle Country:

Missouri ranks second in the nation, second only to Texas, in total numbers of beef cows in

production, with over 2 million cows on 68,000 farms (University of Missouri 2010). To those

that are pro-conservation and concerned about the environment, that is not a bragging right. One

only needs to take a flight just about anywhere over Missouri and the extensive destruction and

conversion of natural habitat for grazing livestock becomes obvious. If demand for meat, poultry,

eggs, and dairy keeps pace with projections, by 2050 the environmental consequences of

livestock production could be responsible for 70 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions

for the planet (Pelletier and Tyedmers 2010). Similarly, Pelletier and Tyedmers determined that

future livestock demand would consume 88% of all of the biomass that humans can safely

harvest from the Earth.

A recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) calls

cattle the greatest threat to climate, forests, and wildlife. Cattle are ―responsible for 18% of

14

greenhouse gases, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.‖ This

includes the fuel burned making fertilizer, to produce the meat and transport it, as well as the

obvious cow flatulence and manure production of methane, 20 times more effective as a global

warmer than carbon dioxide (Alter 2006). Methane has gone up by 150% since the pre-industrial

period. Carbon dioxide has gone up about 30 percent. Methane is much more effective than

carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The heating effects of methane emissions are

more than 60% greater than that of carbon dioxide (Harris 2010).

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually,

accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult

cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 176-240 lbs of methane, but with 100

million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the

largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per

year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions (Environmental

Protection Agency 2010).

Red meat consumption comes with a price; it produces 3.4 times as much greenhouse gas,

produces 17.5 times as much common water pollution, produces 4.5 times as much toxic water

pollution, and uses 4.9 times as much water and 20 times as much land as is needed to produce a

nutritionally equivalent amount of grain (Browner and Leon 1999).

Water consumption is also an important concern. To produce a single pound of meat takes an

average of 2,500 gallons of water—as much as a typical family uses for all its combined

household purposes in a month (Robbins 1998).

Livestock grazing can also increase soil erosion and cause adverse water quality impacts from

increased runoff. The animal’s urine and feces can enter ponded areas or be carried downstream

where they can affect aquatic life. There are possible negative effects of cattle on reproductive

success and post-metamorphic abundance of amphibians (Schmutzer et al. 2008, Murphy et al.

2003, Burton et al. 2009). Elevated ammonia, nitrite and nitrate from cattle have been shown to

decrease survival of amphibian embryos and larvae, negatively affect larval body size and

increase malformation rates (Jofre and Karasov 1999). Also, researchers have found that fish can

exhibit significant effects from cattle runoff pollution, e.g., females begin to exhibit male

characteristics, and vice versa, in areas of high hormone concentrations (Center for Food Safety

2010).

Antibiotics administered to cattle may also affect the health of prairie organisms. Today, close to

70% of the total antibiotics and related drugs produced in the United States are fed to cattle, pigs

and poultry (Union of Concerned Scientists 2010). Although this practice sustains a growing

demand for meat, it also generates public health fears associated with the expanding presence of

antibiotics in the food chain. Plants have been found to readily absorb antibiotics from cattle

manure. Minnesota researchers planted corn, green onions, and cabbages in manure-treated soil

in 2005 to evaluate the environmental impacts of feeding antibiotics to livestock. Six weeks later,

the crops were analyzed and found to absorb chlortetracycline, a drug widely used to treat

diseases in livestock. In another study in 2007, corn, lettuce, and potatoes were planted in soil

treated with liquid hog manure. They, too, accumulated concentrations of an antibiotic, named

Sulfamethazine, also commonly used in livestock. Plants that become laced with drugs meant to

15

treat infections can promote resistant strains of bacteria in the environment (Cimitile 2009).

Whether this is causing damage to insect herbivores, pollinators, and others in the prairie

ecosystem, is uncertain but is not a matter of concern given the current PBG priorities.

PRAIRIE BIRDS

The tender plants, the sweet flowers, the fragrant fruits, the busy insects, all the swarming lives

which had been native here for untold centuries were utterly destroyed…[The prairie] had

vanished as if it had all been dreamed…The pigeons, the plover, the chickens, the vultures, the

cranes, the wolves—all gone—all gone!

─Hamlin Garland (1899) Boy Life on the Prairie

Rohrbaugh et al. (1999) wrote: ―It is socially and financially impossible today to try and recreate

what an ocean of prairie must have looked like so it is very important now to work towards

management that will be as close as possible to what once was. Although there is no way to

determine accurately how natural grazing and fire regimes affected grassland birds in past

centuries, we do assume that grazing and fire shaped the prairie into a mosaic of habitats that

probably differed spatially and temporally in age, structure, and flora and faunal compositions.

This mosaic presumably created suitable habitat for populations of wintering and breeding birds

with diverse habitat requirements.‖

And, an MDC perspective offers this press release: ―Patch-burn grazing gives both ranchers and

conservationists an effective, low-cost way to fatten cattle and favor prairie birds.‖ (Low 2008)

Instead of a more holistic approach to prairie ecosystem management, PBG narrows its focus to

providing an environment that is best suited for cattle and some prairie birds. However,

information and relevance of the benefits for the latter are not that clear. For example, Davit and

Alleger (2008) wrote in a review of the MDC work that ―Overall bird species diversity was

greater in grazed areas than in ungrazed areas, with 32 species of birds observed each year of the

PBG study in grazed areas versus 28 or 30 observed in ungrazed areas.‖ The difference between

28 or 30 is not clear, but if 30 bird species were using ungrazed prairies versus 32 species on

PBG prairies that does not appear to be statistically significant. Because numbers are that similar,

a subsequent year may see the numbers reversed or even matched. Of the 32 species observed in

the four-year PBG study, seven are defined as obligate grassland species (i.e. able to survive only

in a grassland).

The original PBG report by Jamison and Underwood (2008) says that the bird species richness

differed significantly between treatments, with an average 17.46 species occurring on burn vs

20.17 species on the burn + graze units. However, these values differ only by 2.17 bird species.

Further, almost 80% of the birds occurring only in the grazing units are not prairie birds, so the

16

small differences between the burn and burn + graze units could be due to variation in this group.

The non-grassland birds are: eastern bluebird, wood thrush, American robin, black-capped

chickadee, tufted titmouse, downy woodpecker, cedar waxwing, Baltimore oriole, Carolina wren,

pewee, and orchard oriole, which suggests that there must have been woody vegetation in or

close to the sampling areas. The herons must indicate that there was standing water or a stream

nearby.

Exact frequencies are not given for the obligate prairie birds upland sandpiper and greater

prairie-chicken, only that they ―occurred frequently‖ in graze units and less than three times in

burn units. As a result, it is difficult to understand differences in abundance. The obligate

grassland species for which specific abundance data are given are the dickcissel, grasshopper

sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, and eastern meadowlark. Two of these, the dickcissel and

Henslow’s sparrow, actually prefer the burn treatments over grazing, one or two years after fire.

Grassland bird species are also not totally restricted to prairies however. MDC’s informative

management guides for maintaining grasslands (Tall Fescue and Missouri Wildlife; Managing

CRP Grasslands for Bobwhite Quail) include stands of tall fescue, orchard grass, and timothy, as

well as prairie. So these obligate prairie birds are known to occur on various grasslands and not

strictly prairie. It is probably not an acquired adaptation to new habitat, but that the other

grasslands represent the same structure as prairie vegetation preferred by the birds. Of course,

prairie birds have had to adapt to non-native grasslands because of the great reduction of native

prairie and increase in agricultural land. It is well understood that many of these species are on

the decline because of the loss of ideal habitat. But prairie ecosystems are being compromised by

emphasizing a few birds without adequately understanding the impact that PBG is having on

over a thousand other prairie species.

Missouri’s grassland obligate birds are: greater prairie-chicken, Henslow’s sparrow, dickcissel,

bobolink, grasshopper sparrow, eastern meadowlark and upland sandpiper (Fitzgerald et al.

2000, Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000). Of these seven birds, only the greater prairie-chicken and

the upland sandpiper have precocial young that require bare ground immediately after hatching,

with overhead cover 10-15 inches tall (Leahy and Underwood 2010). The other species raise

their young for an extended period in the nest until they fledge, and require vegetative structure

for nesting cover. However, they differ in their requirements, with dickcissels and Henslow’s

sparrows preferring habitats two to three years after a burn. The young do not need open, bare

ground because they are confined to their nests until they take flight. Two other species are

classified as grassland obligate birds, the northern harrier and short-eared owl but they

overwinter in the grasslands and are not summer residents.

Many variables affect nesting success for grassland birds including vegetation height, density or

cover, and variability in structure, or heterogeneity. Fire, grazing, and time since disturbances

affect these variables and affect how birds choose habitats. For example, in grazed prairies

Rohrbaugh et al. (1999) found that nesting success was lowered for eastern meadowlarks,

17

grasshopper sparrows, and dickcissels and that it was difficult to isolate the effects of grazing

from the effects of burning. He also found that 13.5% of eastern meadowlark nests failed

because of trampling by cattle. The effect of fire and/or grazing on grassland vegetation and the

breeding biology of birds has been the subject of several studies, including Wiens (1973),

Whitmore (1981), Johnson and Temple (1986, 1990), Zimmerman (1988, 1996), and Herkert

(1994). Specific management recommendations that may be drawn or inferred from these studies

are often interspecifically contradictory, with a particular burning or grazing regime benefiting

one species to the detriment of another.

Bird Density:

Leahy and Underwood (2010) state that ―PBG has definite positive impacts for true grassland

bird species in terms of increasing densities or diversity in units with this treatment.‖ However,

the report by Jamison and Underwood (2008) does not provide any bird density data, only counts

and richness. Density is usually expressed as the number of species or individual per unit area,

such as 10 dickcissels/acre. In the report, vegetative structure gets 17 figures, but no statistical

tests are applied to these data! Birds get 5 tables and 7 figures, with only a single statistical test

applied to overall differences in richness between treatments. (Plants, by the way, only get 1

table and 3 figures.)

Density also can be a misleading indicator of habitat quality if it does not reflect importance in

population maintenance (Van Horne 1983). A great amount of time and energy went into

creating and measuring vegetative structure for MDC’s PBG study as evidenced by Jamison and

Underwood’s final report (2008). Unfortunately, the PBG study did not include demographic

information, such as nesting attempts and nesting success, for obligate grassland birds and what

effects competition, predation and parasitism (e.g., from cowbirds) might have had in influencing

nesting success. As a result, there is actually no information on the effects of the PBG treatments

on populations of these species.

If vegetative structure is a measure of the importance of using PBG in grasslands for maintaining

obligate grassland birds, grassland quality should be defined in terms of survival and

reproduction, as well as the density of the species occupying that grassland. For example,

Fretwell (1969) reported ―no positive correlation between density and suitability‖ for breeding

field sparrows where suitability was measured in terms of breeding success; densities were

higher in an area where breeding success was lower. O’Connor (1981) summarized data for a

number of migrants and non-migrant bird species in Great Britain. The species showed a pattern

of filling only certain, presumably preferred, habitat when densities were low, but filled the less

preferred habitats when densities were high. Here, density would be a good measure of habitat

quality in years of low-overall density, but would be a misleading indicator in years of high-

overall density.

18

Krebs (1971), Atwood (1980), and Carrick (1963) demonstrated that when breeding birds are

territorial and favorable habitat is limited, a surplus of adults of breeding age (floaters) may

accumulate in poor habitat where either no breeding takes place or where breeding attempts are

largely unsuccessful, resulting in a sink for the species. (A sink is low quality habitat where

excess individuals move to but fail to reproduce or increase population size.) Without

demographic information for prairie birds in grasslands, it may be difficult to accurately assess if

PBG is having definite positive impacts in terms of increasing densities or diversity in units with

this treatment. Further, studies at the species level indicate that remaining large grasslands may

not be sufficient to prevent declines of many grassland birds (With et al. 2008).

Fragmentation:

The change that had taken place in the interval, (1871-1883),was almost beyond belief. Instead

of an open prairie some six miles broad by ten in length, covered with its original characteristic

vegetation, there remained only 160 acres not under fence…The transformation was complete....

As a consequence, we searched in vain for the characteristic prairie birds…We left our beautiful

prairie with sad heart, disgusted with the change which civilization had wrought. The same is the

history of all the smaller prairies in many parts of the state; and it will probably not be many

years before a prairie in its primitive condition cannot be found within the limits of Illinois.

─Ridgway (1889) The ornithology of Illinois

The fragmentation of prairies that once made up tens of thousands of acres or more has had a

detrimental effect on both flora and fauna, especially prairie birds. However, the Missouri PBG

study did not consider the size of the five prairies studied and how nest predation and brood

parasitism (brown-headed cowbirds) might have influenced their monitoring results. Herkert et

al. (2003) measured rates of nest predation and brood parasitism for grasshopper sparrow,

Henslow’s sparrow, eastern meadowlark, and dickcissel in 39 prairie fragments ranging from 60

to 100,000 acres in size in five states in the mid-continental United States. Throughout the

region, nest-predation rates were significantly influenced by size of habitat fragments. Nest

predation was highest (78─84%) in small (less than 250 acres) fragments compared to 54─68%

in large (less than 2,500 acres) prairie fragments. The sizes of the grazing units used in MDC’s

PBG study (See Table 1, p. 6), would fit in the former category of highest vulnerability to

predation and brood parasitism.

Differences in nest-predation rates between large and small fragments suggest that fragmentation

of prairie habitats may be contributing to regional declines of grassland birds. Maintaining

grasslands for bird populations, therefore, may require protection and restoration of large prairie

areas.

Rates of brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, however, are not consistently related to

fragment size but are significantly higher in regions with high cowbird abundance.

Unfortunately, the Missouri PBG study did not take into account the influence that cowbirds had

on the nesting success of prairie birds. Studies have shown that the presence of cattle greatly

attracts cowbirds (Shaffer et al. 2003). In a Kansas study, cowbirds were significantly more

abundant in moderately grazed, annually spring-burned tallgrass prairie than in ungrazed,

19

annually spring-burned CRP fields planted to native grasses (Klute 1994, Klute et al. 1997). To

aid in their reproductive success, cowbirds need perches on which to view bird activity and

potential nest sites in prairies. Livestock act as perches or are sought out for protective cover.

Cattle grazing also creates a short vegetation microhabitat favored for foraging by cowbirds. And

cattle flush up insects as they move along and graze (Goguen and Matthews 1999).

Methods for reducing cowbird parasitism include: (1) acquire and manage large, simple-shaped

tracts rather than small or irregular-shaped tracts to reduce amount of edge (Robinson et al. 1993,

Ortega 1998, Clotfelter et al. 1999, Davis and Sealy 2000); (2) remove potential perches such as

woody vegetation or unnecessary fences (Stauffer and Best 1980, Robinson et al. 1993, Davis

and Sealy 2000); (3) during peak breeding periods of cowbirds host species, remove cattle

(Goguen and Matthews 1999, and (4) eliminate the PBG program.

Another decline in grassland birds is attributed to predators. Predators on grassland bird nests

vary and include mice, snakes, ground squirrels, weasels, badgers, foxes, coyotes, skunks,

raccoons, deer, crows, and hawks (Herkert et al. 2003). Feral cats also play a significant role in

nest predation (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2010). Some of these nest predators

can be more common near edges in some landscapes (Dijak and Thompson 2000; Winter et al.

2000). Fragmentation of grassland habitats, especially native prairie, could be contributing to

regional declines of grassland birds as a result of increased nest-predation rates on small

fragments that make up most of Missouri’s prairies.

Even in large grassland remnants, current land-management practices may be exacerbating

grassland bird declines by degrading habitat. Habitat area is thus no guarantee of population

viability in landscapes managed predominantly for agricultural or livestock production (With et

al. 2008).

Greater Prairie-Chicken

Unfortunately, the plight of the greater prairie-chicken in Missouri is not new. Restoration efforts

began 50 years ago with the reintroduction of 25 birds at Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge

followed by a release in Macon County. Both attempts failed (Robbins and Easterla 1991). More

recently MDC has allocated considerable time and money to create suitable habitat and life

sustaining strategies to halt the rapid decline of the birds. PBG represents the most recent

attempt. Although noteworthy, the greater prairie-chicken reintroduction efforts have not gone

well. In 1989, Missouri had 3,000 greater prairie-chickens left. In 1999, the bird was listed as a

state endangered species. Recently, it was announced that fewer than 100 native greater prairie-

chickens occur in the state (Alleger 2010).

Ongoing problems that continue to defeat the establishment of a successful greater prairie-

chicken population in Missouri are: loss of permanent grassland habitat, degradation of existing

grassland habitat, improved agricultural practices that leave less waste grain in the field for

winter feeding, reduced genetic diversity, and increased predation.

20

Habitat size:

Greater prairie-chickens require large grassland landscapes with high amounts of open space

(Schroeder and Robb 1993). Opinions vary about the spatial scale needed to sustain a viable

population of birds. Hamerstrom et al. (1957) and Sample and Mossman (1997) indicate that

management of greater prairie-chicken core areas should consist of the following landscape

components:

A large area (10,000 to 50,000 acres) of open landscape not more than 20% wooded with

wooded tracts in small, scattered blocks and a limited number of linear treelines.

A core of permanent managed grassland at least 2,000 acres in size for every 10,000

acres of greater prairie-chickens range.

A minimum of 30% of the open lands in permanent grassland, including the core and

scattered blocks of grassland at least 80 acres or larger.

Scattered blocks of long-term grass cover (e.g. CRP, CREP and pasture) totaling an

additional 15-20% of the open landscape.

Adequate winter food supply.

On the low end of the scale, the Missouri Department of Conservation’s (2006) Greater Prairie-

Chicken recovery plan calls for:

A 10,000-acre landscape (wooded acreage not identified).

A core of 2,000 acres of grassland.

An additional 2,000 acres of surrounding grasslands within the 10,000-acre landscape.

Even if core areas were established somewhere in the range between 10,000 and 50,000 acres,

the ability to sustain a strong, viable population of greater prairie-chickens is uncertain.

Populations of many endangered species are unlikely to persist in the face of global climate

change and habitat loss unless they number around 5,000 mature individuals or more (Traill et al.

2010). A longstanding idea in species restoration programs is the 50/500 rule. This states that at

least 50 breeding adults are required to avoid the damaging effects of inbreeding, and 500

breeding adults to avoid extinctions due to the inability to evolve to cope with environmental

change. Populations smaller than about 5,000 have unacceptably high extinction rates (Traill et

al. 2010).

Predators:

As grasslands have been carved and isolated, patches of optimum hunting areas for ground-nest

predators have increased. These predators have no pressure from upper level carnivores, which

have been eliminated. They include: coyote, fox, bobcat, skunk, raccoon, and opossum. Some

have suggested that the reduction of fur trapping has been correlated with the increase of

mammalian predator numbers.

21

Great horned owls and red-tailed hawks also play a significant role in greater prairie-chicken

predation. Early work by Burger (1988) identified the role of hawk kills on booming grounds and

owl predation on nesting female birds. The removal of ―perch trees‖ is now a recommended

practice although not always carried out. (See Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Niawathe Prairie Natural Area with a grove of ―perch trees‖ several of which are now 20

feet tall. Also note the edge effect along the right boundary. (Photo taken June 7, 2010)

Without management practices designed to address and reduce ground-nest predators, greater

prairie-chickens will continue to be at a disadvantage. As this newspaper article in the Jefferson

City News Tribune on September 2, 2008, reported: ―Coyotes and other predators have picked

off many of the 45 male prairie chickens that were relocated from Kansas to a prairie in western

Missouri this spring in hopes of boosting the state’s plummeting population.‖

The greater prairie-chicken restoration program has a number of things working against it that

ensure that small, isolated pockets of birds, over time, will continue to die out. Re-introductions

represent an investment in a false hope. With the present economy, direction of agribusiness, and

human interests there is nothing positive on the horizon for the greater prairie-chicken’s future in

Missouri. Perhaps the thousands of work hours and millions of dollars spent in this restoration

22

program, including PBG, could be redirected to ensure that 99% of the other prairie flora and

fauna have high quality prairies in which to live and for our future generations to appreciate and

enjoy.

OTHER PRAIRIE ANIMALS

Nowhere in the Great Plains does there exist a vestige of a naturally functioning grassland

ecosystem, or even a close simulacrum, because the prairie ecosystem has lost not only grass,

but also wildlife.

─Daniel S. Licht (1997) Ecology and Economics of the Great Plains

―Little data are available on the impacts of PBG to terrestrial invertebrates, small mammals, and

soils. However, the data that are available do not indicate there should be any undue concern for

the impacts of PBG to these resources. This is currently a low priority for future MDC research.‖

(Leahy and Underwood 2010)

In PBG, the emphasis on prairie birds overlooks other faunal and floral representation.

Management priorities need to address both generalists and specialists. That is why it is

important to conduct more detailed surveys and monitoring on prairies that are being selected to

be grazed by cattle. When considering generalists and specialists, management priorities need to

be established in favor of the latter (Swengel and Swengel 2001).

Unfortunately, there are a large number of animals to consider, many more than justifies the

priority of managing prairies for a few select birds. For example, all species of reptiles and

amphibians that exist on prairies are being overlooked by MDC’s PBG program. This also

applies to the PBG programs of other state and federal agencies, organizations, and academics.

23

Table 2. Amphibians and reptiles that inhabit Missouri’s prairies.

Salamanders

- Smallmouth Salamander

- *Eastern Tiger Salamander

Toads and Frogs

- Plains Spadefoot Toad

- Woodhouse’s Toad

- *Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad

- *Northern Crawfish Frog

- *Plains Leopard Frog

Turtles

- *Yellow Mud Turtle

- Ornate Box Turtle

Lizards

- *Great Plains Skink

- *Northern Prairie Skink

Snakes

- Prairie Ringneck Snake

- Great Plains Rat Snake

- Prairie Kingsnake

- Bull Snake

- Plains Garter Snake

- Blotched Water Snake

*Species of Conservation Concern (Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation

Concern, 2010)

From: Animal Management, Prairies. Missouri Department of Conservation Brochure

And, then there are the prairie mammals. Don Kaufman, professor of biology at Kansas State

University with 20 years of prairie research wrote: ―I realize that many people don’t think of

managing mice and other small mammals in the same way that they might agree with managing

deer or species like that. Even though the small mammals might not seem very important in one

way, their presence, in some natural sense, suggests that we’re trying to maintain the integrity of

our world, too.‖ He then goes on to say: ―The grazing of tallgrass prairies is another factor that

can greatly affect small mammal populations.‖ Much like the seasonal burning of the grasses,

heavy grazing by bison or cattle can lead to a decrease in the foliage upon which the small

mammal populations depend for survival (K-State Perspectives 2002). (Fig. 8)

24

Fig. 8. Sparse ground cover due to grazing over the 360-acre prairie provides little habitat for

small mammals and ground nesters. (Niawathe Prairie Natural Area, Photo taken May 2, 2010)

Table 3. Small mammals that inhabit prairies.

- Least Shrew

- Plains Pocket Gopher

- Prairie Vole

- Meadow Jumping Mouse

- Deer Mouse

- *Plains Harvest Mouse

- *Franklin’s Ground Squirrel

- *Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

- *Black-tailed Jack Rabbit

- *American Badger

- *Plains Spotted Skunk

*Species of Conservation Concern (Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation

Concern, 2010)

From: Schwartz, Charles. 1981. The Wild Mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press,

Columbia, Missouri. 356 pp.

25

PRAIRIE INSECTS

Much more work is needed in order to understand the effects that PBG has on hundreds of

species of prairie insects. A few species of butterflies have been selected in the past for study

with varying results, but a whole range of orders of insects are overlooked in the Missouri PBG

program. They include: true bugs, butterflies and moths, bees and wasps, ants, dragonflies and

damselflies, flies, leafhoppers, grasshoppers, and beetles. For example, one two-year study of a

tallgrass prairie in northeastern Oklahoma found 3,000 insect species (Risser et al. 1981) while in

a shortgrass prairie in Colorado, more than 1,600 insect species were found and this list is

incomplete (Kumar et al. 1976).

Prairies with a high species richness and abundance of insects are an important food source for

other animals, especially prairie birds and their young. Many of these insects are not very mobile

and do not range great distances, so if a prairie is abused from overgrazing and their food sources

are greatly reduced resulting in weakening or extirpating an insect population, it is very unlikely

that insect will be able to repopulate from another prairie miles away (Packard and Mutel 1997).

Using fire as a management tool can have positive effects on insect fauna. For example, fire has

been shown to increase insect abundance with both grasshoppers and beetles becoming more

abundant after a fire (Reinking 2006). Grazing as a management tool can also produce varied

effects depending upon management objectives. Fay (2003) found in grazed management units at

the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve (Oklahoma) and the Niobrara Valley Preserve (Nebraska) that

insect species richness and diversity were significantly higher in burned (Tallgrass) and

unburned (Niobrara) portions of bison units compared with their respective cattle units,

suggesting that habitat heterogeneity in terms of plant productivity, composition, and structure

were higher in bison versus cattle and ungrazed management units.

The following are some examples of how the intensity of grazing activity can greatly influence

the richness and abundance of prairie insects:

Prairie Mole Cricket: The largest mole cricket in North America and a species of conservation

concern (Missouri Natural Heritage Program 2010), prairie mole crickets are historically found

in only tallgrass prairies of four states: Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The species

was presumed extinct but in 1986, Dennis Figg and Paul Calvert conducted a systematic search

and found several populations of the prairie mole cricket on Missouri prairies (Figg and Calvert

1987).

Studies have shown that the male prairie mole cricket constructs an acoustical chamber that

amplifies its distinctive call in order to attract females. The chambers are arranged in a lek,

which is a gathering of males of certain animal species for competitive mating display. These

chambers are constructed on more recently burned sites (Howard and Hill 2007).

Since the PBG program focuses on spring burns to attract cattle to feed on the subsequent growth

of prairie vegetation, there could very well be a conflict with prairie mole crickets that depend on

trample-free chambers from April to June as an important element towards completion of their

reproductive cycle.

26

Prairie mole crickets are no longer present in the Flint Hills although this landform contains the

most tallgrass prairie remnant remaining today. Once historically known to occur there, these

insects do not tolerate cattle grazing (Figg and Calvert 1987) even though bison and elk once fed

there. Grazing may have once eliminated local populations of the prairie mole cricket, but the

disturbance was short-lived and the ungulates moved on (Figg and Calvert 1987). Private prairies

that were hayed and with no history of modern grazing are the reason these insects have not gone

extinct. Fire and haying are management tools that appear to have no adverse effects on prairie

mole cricket populations. Has this federally threatened species become extirpated from Niawathe

Prairie Natural Area due to the current grazing practices?

Bees: Bees are the most important pollinators of forbs which are an integral part to prairie

diversity. Andres and Rider (2007) examined the effects of prairie management on prairie bees in

western Minnesota. Their results showed that managing a prairie by burning and haying

produced the highest species richness (71 species on burned prairie and 53 species on hayed

prairie). Grazed and unmanaged prairie showed low species richness (27 and 26 species

respectively).

Regal Fritillary Butterfly: A species of conservation concern (Missouri Natural Heritage

Program 2010), the regal fritillary is declining across its range. During the PBG study, the regal

fritillary was twice as abundant on either the grazed or the grazed and burned units versus the

burn-only units (Leahy and Underwood 2010). However, according to Moranz et al. (2007),

who monitored the MDC PBG units, patches within burned and grazed units were almost

completely devoid of butterflies for much of the summer, whereas patches within burned

ungrazed units supported large populations of butterflies. This was also the situation in 2009 and

2010 at Niawathe Prairie, especially for the regal fritillary due to cattle being allowed to graze

the entire 360-acre prairie.

Regal fritillaries emerge from their overwintering larval (caterpillar) state in late May with the

males emerging a week before the females (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 1995).

Their emergence in Missouri’s tallgrass prairies coincides with blooming of the pale purple

coneflower (Echinacea pallida), which flowers for about three weeks beginning in late May

through the middle of June. Unfortunately, the grazing intensity at Niawathe Prairie Natural Area

in 2009 and 2010 resulted in less than a dozen pale purple coneflowers (its main nectar source)

flowering where thousands had bloomed in the past. After mating, eggs are laid on suitable

larval food plants, which are primarily prairie violet (Viola pedatifida), birdsfoot violet (V.

pedata), and arrowleaf violet (V. sagittata) (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999).

The survival of these violets as host plants could be a problem because of the intensity of grazing

at Niawathe Prairie. Visits to Niawathe Prairie Natural Area in June of 2009 and 2010 found no

regal fritillaries occupying the prairie due to a lack of pale purple coneflowers.

More work needs to be done to better understand the influence that the PBG program is having

on prairies in regard to species richness and abundance of the thousand-plus prairie animal and

plant species that are being overlooked in favor of seven species of birds.

27

PRAIRIE PLANTS

The tallgrass prairie dazzles the eye with an unending array of blooming plants, and this

spectacle, with some seventeen new species coming into bloom each week, lasts from March until

October. The tallgrasses themselves, big bluestem, Indian grass, switchgrass, and cordgrass, to

name the common ones, are the most powerful, the most expansive, the most majestic of all the

prairie plants; they are the redwoods of the prairie.

─Patricia D. Duncan (1978) Tallgrass Prairie

Missouri prairies have an incredible diversity of native plants. The 186-acre Shelton L. Cook

Memorial Meadow, for example, has over 300 species of native plants (The Nature Conservancy

1991). Implementation of PBG on native high quality prairies such as Niawathe Prairie Natural

Area and Taberville Prairie Natural Area can have devastating effects on plant species, especially

when the outcome of such a practice focuses on vegetative structure over species richness and

floral abundance.

The conventional villain in the destruction of the grassland ecosystem is agriculture…[but it] is

not so much that agriculture has converted 43 percent of the prairie biome to cropland but that it

has fragmented virtually 100 percent of the entire prairie ecosystem.

─Daniel Licht (1997) Ecology and Economics of the Great Plains

As a result of fragmentation, isolated tallgrass prairie remnants may harbor greatly reduced

populations of both rare and common plant species. This process can lead to loss of genetic

diversity, reduced gene flow, and genetic drift (Karron 1989, Menges 1991, Heschel and Paige

1995, Stewart and Meingers 2010, Jennersten 1988). Inbreeding depression can then reduce

fitness by reducing plant size, seed numbers, and seed viability, and by increasing susceptibility

to environmental stress (Menges 1991, 1995). For plants with obligate outcrossing breeding

systems, fragmentation may also result in complete loss of reproduction if genetic diversity is

reduced to the point that plants are genetically uniform, such as single clones, or if they contain

only single self-incompatibility alleles.

Livestock grazing can directly impact plants through trampling and grazing, and indirectly by

compacting, exposing, and drying the soil. Such impacts most likely depend on grazing

frequency, length of grazing periods, and the stocking rate. These impacts are also affected by

management such as burning and mowing as well as environmental conditions such as

precipitation and depth to groundwater (Alexander 2006). Grazing may exacerbate fragmentation

effects on plant population viability by further reducing population sizes and health. Such factors

are being overlooked for the most part in PBG practices in Missouri, especially on high quality

prairies.

28

When it comes to studying plant responses to PBG, the emphasis is on vegetative structure for

bird habitat and not long-term survival of plant species, especially for prairie specialists.

Therefore, there is little information in the literature on the effects of grazing on plant species,

especially prairie specialists. The following are examples of some prairie specialists that may be

vulnerable to PBG:

Mead’s Milkweed (Asclepias meadii) ─Mead’s milkweed is an obligate outcrossing prairie

species that usually occurs in low population numbers (Tecic et al. 1998, Bowles et al. 1998). It

is a Missouri species of conservation concern and listed as endangered; it is classified as

threatened on the federal level (Missouri Natural Heritage Program 2010). Once found

throughout the middle and eastern part of the tallgrass prairie region, the species has dwindled to

extremely low numbers or has been extirpated from most states. In 1981, a survey at Niawathe

Prairie Natural Area yielded seven groups of plants for a total of 20 individuals. In 1983: 60

plants; 1984: 78 plants; 1985: 295 plants; and in 1986: 262 plants (Missouri Natural Heritage

Database). Although numbers at Niawathe Prairie Natural Area were encouraging in the past,

little is known about the impact PBG has on the survival of the species. I was told by the area

manager, in a somewhat humorous manner, that some of the plants were fenced inside cattle

exclosures but others were left to be grazed by cattle to see how they would hold up (Hedges

2009). Unfortunately, a loss of even a few flowering plants from grazing in this small population

could reduce the probability of successful outcrossing and seed set.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) ─ The western prairie fringed orchid

is a Missouri state endangered plant and federally threatened species (Missouri Natural Heritage

Program 2010). Alexander et al. (2010) monitored the effects of grazing on the survival of

orchids from flowering to mature seed capsule production, comparing plant height, flower

numbers, and seed capsule numbers from 2002 to 2004 in rotationally grazed prairies and non-

grazed sites. Mean orchid survival was 40% in grazed and 87% in non-grazed areas. Because this

perennial plant relies on carbohydrate reserves produced during the growing season to survive

winter dormancy and produce growth the next season, loss of above-ground photosynthetic parts

by grazing may disrupt the orchid life cycle, preventing flower production in subsequent seasons.

Without production of mature seeds, there is no contribution to the seed bank or recruitment of

orchids into the population (Alexander 2010, Bowles 1983).

Royal Catchfly (Silene regia) – In 1984 a survey at Niawathe Prairie Natural Area yielded

several hundred plants (Missouri Natural Heritage Database). This is another species of national

concern. Missouri is the epicenter for this species. Most other states throughout its former range

list royal catchfly as endangered or extirpated. Even in Missouri, its numbers are not secure. In

several locations in southwestern Missouri, these long-lived perennials are holding on in former

prairie that was converted to fescue pasture. Many have found protection along barbed wire

fences where they are less vulnerable, but these populations are in no way secure. There are few

prairies in the state where this species can still be found. Unfortunately, one of these once secure

populations occurs at Niawathe Prairie Natural Area. (Figs. 9, 10)

29

Fig. 9. Niawathe Prairie in southwest Missouri is among the showiest of Midwestern prairies

and one of the few having the rare royal catchfly. ─John Madson, 1993. (Photo taken July 2000)

Fig. 10. Winged sumac out-of-control after PBG study. Only one royal catchfly plant was

observed over two years and it did not flower. The color is from wicking using a herbicide. The

sumac dominated again the following year. (Photo taken July 10, 2009)

30

Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid (Calopogon oklahomensis) – This recently described species is

not listed as a species of concern in Missouri. However, the status of this orchid may change in

the near future and warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. A petition was

submitted by Douglas Goldman, who first described the orchid as a separate species (Greenwald

2010). The grass pink orchid (see Fig. 11) grows in upland prairies, where it requires frequent

burning and is under threat from forces like habitat destruction for urban and agriculture sprawl,

livestock grazing, and fire suppression. A population of this orchid occurs on the northwestern

part of Taberville Prairie Natural Area. Figure 12 illustrates the current status of this once high

quality prairie. The Oklahoma grass pink orchid is a prairie specialist that may be sensitive to

overgrazing and intense competition from prairie generalists. Unfortunately, once this population

is lost there will be no chance of recruitment from other fragmented prairies. If the reproductive

and growth cycle of this species is similar to the western prairie fringed orchid, it is vulnerable to

grazing.

Fig. 11. The showy Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid, a species being considered for Federal

protection. (Photo taken June 1997)

31

More studies like the one conducted on the western prairie fringed orchid are needed in order to

fully understand the impact of what PBG is doing to these prairie specialists. However, the

deteriorating effects of repeated and concentrated grazing on obligate prairie species are obvious.

Effects of burning and grazing on prairie plants:

Prairies cannot survive without fire, but they may survive without grazing. Burning and grazing

have historically been the natural disturbance processes maintaining prairie ecosystems. When

prairies once occurred on a massive scale, plants and animals were able to recolonize following

local disturbances. Now that the prairie landscape has been fragmented, this process is not

possible. Much thought must be given to choosing which management tools to use and when to

deploy them. Burning has proven to be an extremely important method way to maintain prairie

vegetation because it increases cover and diversity of native species and reduces alien forb and

grass (predominately cool-season) species. For example, in an Iowa study, Brudvig et al. (2007)

found that burned units were dominated by native species and displayed the greatest cover of

warm-season grasses, native forbs, and shrubs as well as greater richness of these native species.

Conversely, grazed, and burned-and-grazed units had approximately 30% lower cover by native

species and, concomitantly, greater cover by exotic forbs and cool-season grasses compared with

burned units.

The PBG program promotes or tends to favor spring burns, a process that is known to stimulate

the growth of warm season grasses and suppress or diminish the growth of forbs (Knapp et al.

1998, 1999). Mid-to late spring fires (as practiced in Kansas and Oklahoma) can burn many

species of forbs that are beginning active growth, while leaving the still-dormant grasses

unharmed (Engle et al. 2000). This fire regime did not naturally occur routinely. Burning in the

summer or early fall to simulate the timing of lightning fire would favor plants that are

consistently infrequent or rare in many prairies (Howe 1994). So in order to achieve a more

natural condition that plants have evolved with, the timing of prairie burns should not be limited

to one particular season.

PBG also may select for unpalatable woody vegetation, especially winged sumac (Rhus

copallina) (Leahy and Underwood 2010). After the four-year MDC PBG program, major stands

of winged sumac developed and considerable time and cost was devoted to treating the shrubs

through herbicide application (rope wicking) and brush hogging. (Note ─ Since sumacs are

rhizomatous, there could be herbicide translocation to other plants). Winged sumac forms large

clones and can shade out other plants. Winged sumac is also allelopathic (the chemical influence

of one plant by another), which causes a toxic environment for other plants that leads to stunted

growth, stress, failed seed germination, and poor survival (Willis 2007). Refer to Figures 9 and

10 to see the likely effects of winged sumac on royal catchfly. In years 2009 and 2010, only one

stunted stem of royal catchfly was observed under an extensive winged sumac thicket and it did

not flower.

Although PBG originated in the Flint Hills of the Great Plains, its management approach is being

encouraged by multiple agencies and organizations in the Midwest. However, research is needed

to understand the consequences of this practice without destroying high quality prairies in the

process. Variability in grassland community response to burning and grazing may be a function

32

of differences in geographic region, climate, topography, and initial species composition, as well

as the timing and type of management (Bazzaz and Parrish 1982). Leach et al. (1999) suggested

that historically bison were not as abundant in the more eastern portion of the tallgrass prairie, as

they were on the western portion of the tallgrass prairie and in mid-and shortgrass prairies. As a

consequence they suggested that a positive relationship did not evolve between grazers and

eastern tallgrass prairies, leaving some plant species vulnerable to grazing. However, this issue

remains unresolved (Howe 1999; Henderson 1999).

Not nearly enough research has been done in Missouri to validate PBG as the best management

tool available to maintain the diversity and quality of its remaining prairies.

PRAIRIE VEGETATION STUDY

We must somehow take a wider view, look at the whole landscape, really see it, and describe

what’s going on there.

─Annie Dillard (1998) Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

Analysis of prairie vegetation sampled during the PBG study found no significant impact on the

vegetative community (Jamison and Underwood 2008; Leahy and Underwood 2010; Underwood

2010). However, given the short duration of the study, the methods of analysis used, and lack of

analysis of changes in species composition, the results are uninformative. It is also unknown

whether the conclusion that PBG does not significantly impact the vegetative community would

remain valid when compared to a longer period study.

The primary analysis used is the Floristic Quality Index (FQI). It claims to measure the floristic

quality of plant communities by assigning each native plant species a coefficient of

conservatism, a subjective rating that describes its affinity for remnant natural communities

(Ladd 1997, Taft et al. 2006). The mean coefficient of conservatism (mean C) is multiplied by

the square root of the number of native species sampled to obtain the Index value. This statistic

can be calculated by weighting species abundance. Jamison and Underwood (2008) based their

calculations on unweighted samples, which are not sensitive to compositional differences among

species. More seriously, the assigned coefficients are not unbiased nor independent measures, as

they are based on circular reasoning and tend to give higher values to rare plants. Plants thought

to indicate high natural quality are given high coefficients, which are then used to evaluate

quality. In a study of high quality Illinois prairies, it was found that these values could not

differentiate prairie quality nor different levels of disturbance to prairie and were not sensitive to

effects of fire management (Bowles and Jones 2006). Likewise, in Iowa, Brudvig et al. (2007)

found that FQI could not separate between burning and grazing effects on native prairie, even

though the prairies differed in native species richness.

33

The Jamison and Underwood (2008) study also fails to explain the scale at which data were

analyzed, which may affect comparisons between treatments. The study illustrates a nested plot

sampling strategy using 0.01, 0.1, 1.0, and 10 square meter plots. But it is not explained how or

whether the data were recorded and analyzed within the nested plots, and it appears that all the

data were analyzed at the largest plot scale. This large scale makes it difficult or impossible to

detect significant change in vegetation composition and structure that occur at small scales with

the onset of grazing, and therefore the PBG analysis is biased toward finding no significant

results. For example, a significant drop in abundance of a vulnerable plant species detected at ¼

meter square would not occur if it remained present but rare at the 10-square-meter square scale.

At the same time, a single increaser (a prairie generalist) could occur in the plot, thereby

increasing total richness. During the four-year monitoring program, there was no analysis of

change in individual species abundance between grazed and ungrazed treatments.

A large part of the PBG monitoring program dealt with measuring vegetative structure achieved

by grazing. Structure units were divided into classes of vegetation measured by height, bare

ground, litter, forb cover, and grass cover (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2004, Jamison and Underwood

2008). Importance was given to the classes of vegetation structure and not the species

composition within those classes. Therefore, results of PBG monitoring highlight the success of

increasing vegetation structural heterogeneity (Jamison and Underwood 2008) but there is no

consideration for species composition within those vegetation structures. All species are treated

equally regardless of a species’ conservation needs. For example, summer vegetation structure

consists of grazing increasers (plant species less palatable to cattle). These are generalist plant

species with broad ecological amplitude that are not restricted to prairies (Figs. 12, 13). While

the more conservative, obligate species are grazed and weakened, the more aggressive generalist

species are allowed to produce seeds, increase their vigor, and generally flourish (Fahnestock

and Knapp 1993, Damhoureyeh and Hartnett 1997) thus lowering the natural quality of the

prairie. (Refer to Figs. 12 and 13 and Table 3 that show prairie increasers due to cattle grazing.)

Fig. 12. Taberville Prairie PBG unit showing dominance by prairie generalist species. (Photo

taken August 26, 2009)

34

Fig. 13. Niawathe Prairie PBG unit dominated by ashy sunflower, an allelopathic prairie

generalist. (Photo taken August 26, 2010)

Table 4. Summer increaser species found in PBG units at Taberville Prairie Natural Area and

Niawathe Prairie Natural Area on July 26, 2010.

Achillea millefolium (Yarrow)

Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Common Ragweed)

Amorpha canescens (Lead Plant)

Baptisia alba (Wild White Indigo)

Baptisia bracteata var. leucophaea (Cream

Wild Indigo)

Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey Tea)

Diodia teres (Buttonweed)

Erigeron annuus (Daisy Fleabane)

Eupatorium perfoliatum (Common Boneset)

Euthamia graminifolia (Flat-topped

Goldenrod)

Helenium flexuosum (Sneezeweed)

Helianthus mollis (Ashy Sunflower)

Polygala sanguinea (Field Milkwort)

Pycnanthemum tenuifolium (Slender Mountain

Mint)

Rhus copallina (Winged Sumac)

Rubus sp. (Blackberry)

Rudbeckia hirta (Black-eyed Susan)

Ruellia humilis (Wild Petunia)

Solidago altissima (Tall Goldenrod)

Solidago rigida (Stiff Goldenrod)

Symphyotrichum pilosum (White Heath Aster)

Vernonia arkansana (Arkansas Ironweed)

Vernonia baldwinii (Western Ironweed)

As mentioned earlier, according to Jamison and Underwood (2008), Underwood (2010), and

Leahy and Underwood (2010), ―Current data analysis shows that patch-burn grazing has had no

significant impact on the vegetative community.‖ After reviewing the summer photos and list of

standing vegetation, it should be impossible to conceive that there has been no significant impact

on the natural quality of the prairies receiving PBG.

35

CONCLUSION

PBG is a very controversial and untested tool for managing prairies with high species richness

and abundance. Short-term results brought forward by MDC are not in peer-reviewed papers─

while the media releases extol the benefits of using cattle on prairies without explaining or

examining the disadvantages of such actions. Although native grazers once performed an

important function, along with fire, in promoting a dynamic prairie ecosystem on a landscape

scale, that process is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate with cattle in a fragmented

landscape. Prairies have been reduced to mere fragments of their former character, and

ecosystem management need to be adjusted to ensure that species diversity, life form, and

individual species are not lost.

Intense grazing on such small prairie fragments is not working. Burned patches are so small that

they do not hold the cattle, and the entire prairie is being grazed. Large landscapes are needed

where cattle can be kept on the recently burned patch for an appropriate time. The practice is best

for already degraded grasslands where it is possible to diversify vegetative structure for obligate

prairie birds while providing a grazing resource. It is not sound ecosystem management to use

PBG on small high quality prairies. These prairies should be preserved as baseline areas of high

quality ecosystems for comparison with other lower quality areas and their management. I am

very concerned that MDC, which manages almost 13,000 acres of remnant (unplowed) prairie

has, as of 2009, deployed PBG with cattle on 11 prairie conservation areas; that is 17% of the

prairie conservation areas that MDC manages (Leahy and Underwood 2010). Current plans by

the MDC prairie-chicken recovery team (October 2009) are to introduce PBG to additional

prairies that will result in 30% of all MDC’s public prairies being grazed. The prairies, as those

selected in the past for PBG, will likely be some of the largest prairies in the system thus

impacting the best examples of near landscape-level prairies that remain in the state. This is a

bold step to take, given that PBG is only a partially-researched and questionable method for

maintaining healthy, viable prairie ecosystems.

36

REFERENCES

Alexander, B. W. 2006. An analysis of seed production, viability, germination in situ, and

grazing impacts on the western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara, Sheviak and

Bowles). Dissertation, North Dakota University of Agriculture and Applied Science, Fargo. 171

pp.

Alexander, B.W., D. K. Kirby, M. Biondini, and E. Dekeyser. 2010. Cattle grazing reduces

survival and reproduction of the western prairie fringed orchid. The Prairie Naturalist 42(1/2):46-

49.

Alleger, M. 2010. Bringing back the boomers: Greater prairie chicken recovery in Missouri.

Public Presentation, Missouri Department of Conservation.

Alter, L. 2006. Cows and climate change. Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/cows_and_climat_1.php

Andres, R. L. and D. A. Rider. 2007. Effects of tallgrass prairie management (burning, haying,

grazing) on prairie bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in western Minnesota. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America, San Diego, CA, December 9-12, 2007.

Atwood, J. L. 1980. Social interactions in the Santa Cruz Island scrub jay. Condor 82:440-448.

Bazzaz, F. A. and J. A. Parrish. 1982. Organization of grassland communities. Pages 233-252 in

J. R. Estes, R.J. Tyrl, and N. N. Brunken, editors. Grasses and grasslands: systematics and

ecology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Bowles, M. 1983. The tallgrass prairie orchids Platanthera leucophaea (Nutt.) Lindle. and

Cypripedium candidum Muhl. Ex. Willd. Some aspects of their status, biology, and ecology and

implications toward management. Natural Areas Journal 3:14-37.

Bowles, M.L., J.L. McBride & R.F. Betz. 1998. Management and restoration ecology of the

federal threatened Mead's milkweed, Asclepias meadii Torrey (Asclepiadaceae). Annals of the

Missouri Botanical Garden 85:110-125.

Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2006. Testing the efficacy of species richness and floristic quality

assessment of quality, temporal change, and fire effects in tallgrass prairie natural areas. Natural

Areas Journal 26(1):17-30.

Browner, M. and W. Leon. 1999. The consumer’s guide to effective environmental choices.

Three Rivers Press, New York. 304 pp.

Brudvig, L. A. et al. 2007. Evaluation of central North American prairie management base on

species diversity, life form, and individual species metrics. Conservation Biology 21(3):864-874.

Burger, L. W. 1988. Movements, home range, and survival of female greater prairie-chickens in

relation to habitat pattern. M.S. Thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia. 108 pp.

37

Burton, E. C., M. J. Gray, A. C. Schmutzer, and D. L. Millier. 2009. Differential responses of

postmetamorphic amphibians to cattle grazing in wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management

73(2):269-277.

Carrick, R. 1963. Ecological significance of territory in the Australian magpie, Gymnorhina

tibicen, Proc. Int. Ornithol. Congr. 13:740-753.

Center for Food Safety. 2010. rBGH/Hormones.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/rbgh_hormo.cfm.

Cimitile, M. 2009. Crops absorb livestock antibiotics, science shows. Environmental Health

News. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/antibiotics-in-crops.

Clotfelter, E. D., K. Yasukawa, and R. D. Newsome. 1999. The effects of prescribed burning and

habitat edges on brown-headed cowbird parasitism of redwinged blackbirds. Pp. 275-281 in

Research and management of the brown-headed cowbird in western landscapes (M. L. Morrison,

L. S. Hall, S. K. Robinson, S. I. Rothstein, D. C. Hahn, and T. D. Rich, editors). Studies in Avian

Biology 18.

Curtis, J. 1959. Vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 640 pp.

Damhoureyeh, S. A. and D. C. Hartnett. 1977. Effects of bison and cattle on growth,

reproduction, and abundances of five tallgrass prairie forbs. American Journal of Botany

84:1719-1728.

Davis, S. K., and S. G. Sealy. 2000. Cowbird parasitism and nest predation in fragmented

grasslands of southwestern Manitoba. Pp. 220-228 in Ecology and management of cowbirds and

their hosts (N. M. Smith, T. L. Cook, S. Rothstein, S. K. Robinson, and S. G. Sealy, editors).

University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Davit, C. and M. Alleger. 2008. Patch-burn grazing benefits grassland birds and cattle producers.

Missouri Prairie Foundation Journal, 29(1):12-19.

Dijak, W. D., and F. R. Thompson. 2000. Landscape and edge effects on the distribution of

mammalian predators in Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:209-216.

Dillard, A. 1998. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. HarperCollins Publishers, New York. 304 pp.

Drew, W. B. 1947. Floristic composition of grazed and ungrazed prairie vegetation in north-

central Missouri. Ecology 28(1):26-41.

Duncan, P. D. 1978. Tallgrass prairie: the inland sea. Lowell Press, Kansas City, Missouri. 113

pp.

Elder, W. 1961. Needs and problems of grassland preservation. In Least Heat-Moon, W. 1999.

PrairyErth (A deep map): an epic history of the tallgrass prairie country. Mariner Books

Publishing, New York. 640 pp.

38

Engle, D. M., M. W. Palmer, J. S. Crockett, and R. Stevens. 2000. Influence of late season fire

on early successional vegetation of an Oklahoma prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:135-

144.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Ruminant livestock: how much methane is produced by

livestock? U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

Fahnestock, J. T., and A. K. Knapp. 1993. Water relations and growth of tallgrass prairie forbs in

response to selective herbivory by bison. International Journal of Plant Science 154:432-440.

Fay, P. A. 2003. Insect diversity in two burned and grazed grasslands. Environmental

Entomology 32(5):1099-1104.

Figg, D. E. and P. D. Calvert. 1987. Status, distribution and life history of the prairie mole

cricket, Gryllotalpa major Saussure. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City,

Missouri. 40 pp.

Fitzgerald, J. A. and D. N. Pashley, 2000. Partners in flight bird conservation plan for the

Dissected Till Plains (Physiographic Area 32). Version 1.0. American Bird Conservancy.

Fitzgerald, J. A., B. Busby, M. Howery, R. Klataske, D. Reinking, and D. Pashley. 2000.

Partners in flight conservation plan for the Osage Plains (Physiographic Area 33). Version 1.0.

American Bird Conservancy.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. Livestock a major threat

to environment: remedies urgently needed. FAO Newsroom.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Fretwell, S. D. 1969. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in

birds. III. Breeding success in a local population of field sparrows (Spizella pusilla Wils.). Acta

Biotheor 19:45-52.

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem

management based on evolutionary grazing patters. BioScience 51(8):625-632.

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a

shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604-614.

Garland, H. 1899. Boy life on the prairie. Harper and Brothers, New York, NY. P. 388.

Gilmore, L. 2009. Personal communication with MDC wildlife management biologist and area

manager of Taberville Prairie.

Goguen, C., and N. E. Mathews. 1999. Review of the causes and implications of the association

between cowbirds and livestock. Pp. 10-17 in Research and management of the brown-headed

cowbird in western landscapes (M. L. Morrison, L. S. Hall, S. K. Robinson, S. Rothstein, D. C.

Hahn, and T. D. Rich, editors). Studies in Avian Biology 18.

39

Greenwald, Noah. 2010. Prairie orchid one step closer to endangered species protection. Press

Release. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ.

Hamerstrom, F. N. Jr., O. E. Mattson, and F. Hamerstrom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken

management. Wisconsin Tech. Wildlife Bull. 15. Wisconsin Conservation Department. Madison,

WI. USA. 128 pp.

Hamilton, R.G. 2007. Restoring heterogeneity on the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve: applying the

fire–grazing interaction model. Pages 163–169 in R.E. Masters and K.E.M. Galley (eds.).

Proceedings of the 23rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference: Fire in Grassland and Shrubland

Ecosystems. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Harris, R. 2010. Methane causes vicious cycle in global warming. Accessed January 28, 2010.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800&ft=1&f=1025

Hedges, K. 2009, 2010. Personal communication with MDC wildlife management biologist and

area manager of Niawathe Prairie.

Henderson, R. 1999. Response to Henry Howe. Ecological Restoration 17:189-192.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. Breeding bird communities of Midwestern prairie fragments: the effects of

prescribed burning and habitat-area. Natural Areas Journal 14:128-135.

Herkert, J. R., et al. 2003. Effects of prairie fragmentation on the nest success of breeding birds

in the midcontinental United States. Conservation Biology 17(2):587-594.

Heschel, M. S. and K. N. Paige. 1995. Inbreeding depression, environmental stress, and

population size variation in Scarlet Gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata). Conservation Biology 9:126-

133.

Hogan, C. M. and S. D. Draggan. 2009. Overgrazing. in Encyclopedia of Earth. Environmental

Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C.

Holechek, J. L. et al. 2000. Short-duration grazing: the facts in 1999. Rangelands 21(5):18-22.

Howard, D. R., and P. S. M. Hill. 2007. The effect of fire on spatial distributions of male mating

aggregations in Gryllotalpa major Saussure (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae) at the Nature

Conservancy’s Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma: evidence of a fire-dependent species.

Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 80:51–64.

Howe, H. F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: assumption and implications.

Conservation Biology 8(3):691-704.

Howe, H. F. 1999. Dominance, diversity and grazing in tallgrass restoration. Ecological

Restoration 17:59-66.

Jamison, B. and M. Underwood. 2008. Evaluation of a grazing system for maintaining grassland

integrity and improving upland bird habitat. Project Final Report, Missouri Department of

Conservation, Jefferson City. 43 pp.

40

Jennersten, O. 1988. Pollination in Dianthus deltoids (Caryophyllaceae): Effects of habitat

fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Conservation Biology 2:359-366.

Jofre, M. B., and W. H. Karasov. 1999. Direct effect of ammonia on three species of North

American anuran amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:1806-1812.

Johnson, R. G. and S. A. Temple. 1986. Assessing habitat quality for birds nesting in fragmented

tallgrass prairies. In J. A. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph (editors). Wildlife 2000:

modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

245-249.

Johnson, R. G., and S. A. Temple. 1990. Nest predation and brood parasitism of tallgrass prairie

birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:106-111.

K-State Perspectives. 2002. Small mammals of the Konza Prairie Biological Station. Kansas

State University, Manhattan. 1 p.

Karron, J. D. 1989. Breeding systems and levels of inbreeding depression in geographically

restricted and widespread species of Astragalus (Fabaceae). American Journal of Botany 76:331-

340.

Kerr, A. 2010. Grazing, livestock quote (http://www.andykerr.net/)

Klute, D. S. 1994. Avian community structure, reproductive success, vegetative structure, and

food availability in burned Conservation Reserve Program fields and grazed pastures in

northeastern Kansas. M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Klute, D. S., R. J. Robel, and K. E. Kemp. 1997. Will conversion of Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) lands to pasture be detrimental for grassland birds in Kansas? American Midland

Naturalist 137:206-212.

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Briggs, D. C. Hartnett, and S. L. Collins (all editors). 1998. Grassland

Dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie (Long-Term Ecological Research

Network Series, 1). Oxford University Press, USA. 386 pp.

Knapp, A. K. et al. 1999. The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie.

BioScience 49(1):39-50.

Konza Prairie Biological Station. 2010. History of the Land. Kansas State University,

Manhattan. 2 p.

Krebs, J. R. 1971. Territory and breeding density in the great tit Parus major L. Ecology 52:2-

22.

Kumar, R., R. J. Lavigne, J. E. Lloyd, and R. E. Pfadt. 1976. Insects of the Central Great Plains

Experimental Range, Pawnee National Grasslands. Agricultural Experiment Station Scientific

Report 32. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 74 pp.

41

Kurz, D. R., ed. 2003. Public prairies of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation,

Jefferson City. 48 pp.

Ladd, D. M. 1997. Appendix A: Vascular plants of Midwestern tallgrass prairies. Pp. 351-400 in

S. Packard and C. F. Mutel (eds.). The tallgrass prairie restoration handbook for prairies,

savannas, and woodlands. Society for Ecological Restoration, Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Leach, M. K., R. A. Henderson, T. J. Givnish, A. K. Knapp, D. C. Hartnett, S. L. Collins, and J.

M. Briggs. 1999. A caution against grazing. BioScience 49(8): 599-601.

Leahy, M. 2010. Personal communication with Missouri Department of Conservation natural

areas coordinator.

Leahy, M., and M. Underwood. 2010. Patch-burn grazing with cattle as a prairie management

tool on Missouri Department of Conservation lands. Missouri Department of Conservation.

Unpublished. 30 pp.

Licht, D. S. 1997. Ecology and economics of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press,

Lincoln. 227 pp.

Low, J. 2008. Grazing technique good for cattle and birds. Missouri Department of Conservation

Blog, November 25, 2008, http://missouriconservationnews.blogspot/2008/11/grazing-technique-

good-for-cattle-and-birds/

Madson, J. 1993. Tallgrass Prairie. Falcon Press, Helena, Montana. 112 pp.

Mayer, F. H. and C. B. Roth. 1996. The Buffalo Harvest. Eight-part PBS-TV documentary.

McDonald, J. N. 1981. North American Bison: Their Classification and Evolution. University of

California Publications in Zoology 88:1-191.

Menges, E. S. 1991. Seed germination percentage increases with population size in a fragmented

prairie species. Conservation Biology 5:158-164.

Menges, E. S. 1995. Factors limiting fecundity and germination in small populations of Silene

regia (Caryophyllaceae), a rare hummingbird-pollinated prairie forb. American Midland

Naturalist 133:242-255.

Missouri Department of Conservation. No date. Animal Management, Prairies. Missouri

Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 1 p.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2006. Recommendations for recovery of Greater Prairie-

Chicken in Missouri (FY07-FY11). Unpublished Report. Missouri Department of Conservation,

Jefferson City. 75 pp.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2007. Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. Last

updated February 9, 2007, http://mofep.mdc.mo.gov/

42

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010a. Missouri forest facts. Accessed 9/21/2010,

http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/habitats/forests/missouri-forest-facts.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010b. Why are natural areas important? Accessed

9/21/2010. http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/places-go/natural-areas/why-are-natural-areas-

important

Missouri Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Missouri species and communities of conservation

concern. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City.

Moranz, R., S. Fuhlendorf, and D. Engle. 2007. Effects of patch-burn grazing on butterflies in

tallgrass prairie (paper presented at the 60th

annual meeting of the Society for Range

Management, Reno-Sparks, Nevada, February 9-16, 2007.

Murphy, J. F., Simandle, E. T., and Becker, D. E. 2003. Population status and conservation of the

black toad, Bufo exsul. Southwestern Naturalist 48:54-60.

Nelson, K. 1978. Fire, herbicides, and grazing in the Cross Timbers. Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma

State University, Stillwater. 34 pp.

Nickens, T. E. 2010. Vanishing voices: as the continent’s grasslands disappear, the songs of the

birds that depend on them are also fading away. National Wildlife 48(6)22-29.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 1995. Regal Fritillary Butterfly (Speyeria idalia).

U.S. Geological Survey. 3 pp.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 2010. Integrated management of the greater prairie

chicken and livestock on the Sheyenne National Grassland. U. S. Geological Survey. Accessed

10/2/2010. http://npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sheyenne/predate.htm

O’Connor, R. J. 1981. Habitat correlates of bird distribution in British census plots. Pages 533-

537 in C. J. Ralph and J. M. Scott, eds. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Cooper Ornithol.

Soc., Stud. Avian Biol. 6.

Ortega, C. P. 1998. Cowbirds and other brood parasites. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Packard, S. and C. Mutel. 1997. The tallgrass restoration handbook: for prairies, savannas, and

woodlands. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 463 pp.

Peden, D. G., G. M. Van Dyne, R. W. Rice, and R. M. Hansen. 1974. The trophic ecology of

Bison bison L. on shortgrass plains. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:489-498.

Pelletier, N. and P. Tyedmers. 2010. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of

livestock production 2000-2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/27/1004659107.abstract

Plumb, D. G. and J. L. Dodd. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a mixed prairie:

Implications for natural area management. Ecological Applications 3:631-643.

43

Plumb, D. G. and J. L. Dodd. 1994. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle. Rangelands 18(3):

107-109.

Reinking, D. L. 2006. Fire in the tallgrass prairie: finding the right balance of burning for birds.

Birding 2006:32-38.

Ridgway, R. 1889. The ornithology of Illinois. Vol. I. Illinois State Laboratory of Natural

History. 520 pp.

Risser, P. G., E. C. Birney, H. D. Blocker, S. W. May, W. J. Parton, and J. A. Wiens. 1981. The

true prairie ecosystem. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, Pa. 557 pp.

Robbins, J. 1998. Diet for a new planet. H. J. Kramer Inc., Tiburon, CA. 448 pp.

Robbins, M. B. and D. A. Easterla. 1992. Birds of Missouri: their distribution and abundance.

University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 399 pp.

Robinson, S. K., 1. A. Grzybowski, S. I. Rothstein, M. C. Brittingham, L. J. Petit, and F. R.

Thompson, III. 1993. Management implications of cowbird parasitism on Neotropical migrant

songbirds. Pp. 93-102 in Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds (D. M. Finch

and P. W. Stangel, editors). U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Rohrbaugh, R. et al. 1999. Effects of prescribed burning and grazing on nesting and reproductive

success of three grassland passerine species in tallgrass prairie. Studies in Avian Biology No.

19:165-170.

Sample, D. and M. Mossman. 1997. Managing Habitat for Grassland Birds: A guide for

Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI.

Savage, C. 2004. Prairie: A natural history. Greystone Books, Vancouver, BC. 320 pp.

Schmutzer, A. C., M. J. Gray, E. C. Burton, and D. L. Miller. 2008. Impacts of cattle on

amphibian larvae and the aquatic environment. Freshwater Biology 2008(53):2613-2625.

Schroeder, J. W. 2010. Dairy focus: rain can reduce hay quality. North Dakota State University

Agricultural Experiment Station Communication. 2 pp.

Schroeder, M. A. and L. A. Robb.1993. Greater Prairie-Chicken, Number 36 in A. Poole, editor.

The Birds of North America. In Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Schwartz, C. 1981. The Wild Mammals of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia,

MO. 356 pp.

Shaffer, J. A. et al. 2003. Brown-headed cowbirds in grasslands: Their habitats, hosts, and

response to management. The Prairie Naturalist 35(3).

Shepard, Paul. 1998. Nature and madness. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 200 pp.

44

Stauffer, D. F., and L. B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities:

evaluating effects of habitat alterations. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 1-15.

Steinauer, E. M., and S. L. Collins. 1996. Prairie Ecology – The Tallgrass Prairie. Pages 39-52 in

Prairie Conservation: Preserving North America’s Most Endangered Ecosystem (F. B. Samson

and F. L. Knopf, Eds.).

Steuter, A. A., E. M. Steinauer, P. A. Bowers, and L. L. Tieszen. 1995. Distribution and diet of

bison and pocket gophers in a sandhills prairie. Ecological Applications 5:756-766.

Steuter, A. and L. Hidinger. 1999. Comparative ecology of bison and cattle on mixed-grass

prairie. Great Plains Research 9:329-342.

Stewart, W. L. and S. J. Meiners. 2010. Variation in plant performance among seed sources:

implications for prairie restoration. Erigenia 24(3):18-24.

Swengel, A. B. and S. R. Swengel. 2001. Effects of prairie and barrens management on butterfly

faunal composition. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1757-1785.

Taft, J. B., C. Hauser, and K. R. Robertson. 2006. Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass

prairie. Biological Conservation 131(1):42-51.

Tecic. D., J.L. McBride, M.. Bowles & D.L. Nickrent. 1998. Genetic variability in the federal

threatened Mead's milkweed, Asclepias meadii Torrey Asclepiadaceae) as determined by

allozyme electrophoresis. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85:97-109

The Nature Conservancy. 1991. Discover Natural Missouri: A guide to exploring The Nature

Conservancy preserves. The Nature Conservancy, District of Columbia. 212 pp.

Toney, T. 2010. Personal communication with retired Missouri Department of Conservation

prairie biologist.

Traill, L. W. et al. 2010. Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world.

Biological Conservation 143(1):28-34.

Truett, J. C., M. Phillips, K. Kunkel, and R. Miller. 2001. Managing bison to restore biodiversity.

Great Plains Research 11: 123-144.

UN News Service. 2006. Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN

report warns. http://www.un.org/apps/news/printnewsAr.asp?nid=20772

Underwood, M. 2010. Patch-burn grazing and prairie vegetation. Missouri Prairie Journal

31(1):12-19.

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2010. Prescription for trouble: using antibiotics to fatten cattle.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agricultur

e/prescription-for-trouble.html

45

University of Missouri. 2010. Extension program areas: beef. Extension Service, Division of

Animals Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia. http://www.agri.missouri.edu/extension/

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife

Management 47(4):893-901.

Van Vuren, D., M. P. Bray. 1983. Diets of bison and cattle on a seeded range in southern Utah.

Journal of Range Management 36:499-500.

White, J. 1978. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Volume 1. Department of Landscape

Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and Natural Land Institute, Rockford,

IL.

Whitehead, D.C. 2000. Nutrient elements in grassland: soil-plant-animal relationships. CABI

Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK. 369 pp.

Whitmore, R. C. 1981. Structural characteristics of Grasshopper Sparrow habitat. Journal of

Wildlife Management 45:811-814.

Wiens, J. A. 1973. Pattern and process in grassland bird communities. Ecological Monographs

43:237-270.

Willis, R. J. 2007. The history of allelopathy. Springer Publishing, New York, NY. 322 pp.

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, and J. Faaborg. 2000. Evidence of edge effects on multiple levels in

tallgrass prairie. Condor 102:256-266.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Endangered Resources Program, Species

Information, Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia). WDNR Publication PUB-ER-085-99.

With, K. A., A. W. King, and W. E. Jensen. 2008. Remaining large grasslands may not be

sufficient to prevent grassland bird declines. Biological Conservation 141: 3152-3167.

Zimmerman, J. L. 1988. Breeding season habitat selection by the Henslow’s Sparrow

(Ammodramus henslowii) in Kansas. Wilson Bulletin 100:17-24.

Zimmerman, J. L. 1996. Avian community responses to fire, grazing, and drought in the tallgrass

prairie. Pp. 167-180 in F. Knopf and F. B. Samson (editors). Ecology and conservation of Great

Plains vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.