As 2024 winds down, it's interesting to look back and think about what we learned about prairie restoration and management. The Prairie Promoter of The Prairie Enthusiasts is a good place to start- https://theprairieenthusiasts.org/news/prairie-promoter/ . In 2024 we learned that the dormant season is likely the optimal time to burn our prairies, about the role of grazing, and that "stability" is an organizing concept that can guide our stewardship of prairies. The recently added "Management Toolbox" is very helpful and the Frequently Asked Questions section on the TPE website is packed with good information- https://theprairieenthusiasts.org/about-us/who-we-are/faq/. Conferences, video presentations, and blogs from elsewhere add to the mix.
However practices that at one time are accepted wisdom can change with time. For example, consider medicine. Bloodletting was once a widely accepted practice that few challenged, was regarded as the unquestionable truth of its time, persisting for many years and causing significant harm—just ask George Washington. Ignaz Simmelweis, after carefully studying postpartum fever in the mid 1800's, tried to get doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies, was mocked for it, committed to an asylum where he died at age 47 after being beaten by guards. More recently, the incidence of peanut allergy soared in the early 2000's and became a major problem due to the misguided recommendation of the medical community to avoid nuts until the age of 3. The list of abandoned practices in medicine is long and humbling.
Even in mathematics, which we often consider to have clear-cut right and wrong answers, uncertainty can arise. For instance, consider the following infinite series mentioned in the October issue of Scientific American:
1 - 1 + 1 - 1+ 1 - 1 + 1.....
What is its value? Is there an easy answer? No, even a seemingly trivial sequence of numbers sparks significant debate among mathematicians. Various experts assert, with great certainty, that it equals 0, 1, 1/2, or "It is undefined".
Proponents of 0 justify their stance using parentheses in this manner: (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1)... which results in 0 when applying the PEMDAS rules (refer to the previous blog post https://www.friendsoftheblufflands.org/post/pemdas-on-the-prairie), where P represents "parentheses," indicating they should be addressed first. Thus the answer is 0. Obviously.
However, others argue that by shifting the parentheses slightly, as in: 1 + ( -1 + 1) + ( -1 + 1) + ( -1 + 1)..., each ( -1 + 1) becomes 0, leaving only the initial 1. And the answer is clearly 1.
How does one arrive at an answer of 1/2? If numerous random points along the series are selected, eventually half will equal 0 and half will equal 1. Thus, the "answer" is 1/2. The article provides this example: suppose two brothers inherited a gem and each are allowed to keep it on alternate years. If asked, each brother could legitimately claim 1/2 ownership of the gem.
The final statement, "It is undefined," claims that summing an infinite series is not feasible, implying that there is truly no solution.
Now consider a prairie. How can we expect to find definitive answers to questions about a complex prairie when even a straightforward math series lacks a consensus? Numerous questions remain unresolved and are subjects of debate among prairie experts. And often, each gives vastly different advice.
Which herbicide, or combination of herbicides should I use? On which plant, at which time of year, at which temperature, and how many hours before and after rain? How is it best applied and how much should be used? What unanticipated collateral damage will the herbicide do to prairie plants and animals, including me as I apply the herbicide? Can I avoid the use of herbicides, at least sometimes? How about goats, cattle, or bison? Will fire wipe out some of my insects species? Can refugia help and should they always be used? How big should they be? Should I leave some red cedars for the Juniper Hairstreak butterfly? Or some grapevines, brush, or trees for timber rattlesnakes? Should I worry that my reconstructed prairie or newly opened areas into which my prairie can expand is not "really" a prairie until it has the full component of plant species of a remnant prairie? Or that it does not have the complex microscopic mix in the soil of a remnant that is necessary for many of the highly conservative prairie plants to grow? Should I try to leap frog the untold time it will take to build that mix naturally by inoculating the soil of my reconstructed or expanded prairie? Is that anywhere near becoming a reasonable practice? How about sprinkling some soil from a remnant into the new prairie? Should I join the "assisted migration" crowd and submit to the temptation to help my prairie thrive in the new world of fragmentation and climate change by bringing in seeds from elsewhere, even outside their historical range? Should I celebrate the finding of a rare species on my prairie or should I reserve the celebration for the entire ecosystem? How should my "success" at restoration be measured? By the acre, by the number of plant and insect species, by the floristic quality quotient, by the ongoing viability and resilience of the final product?
Hopefully each year we inch towards better answers to the uncertainties facing us as we restore and maintain the prairies in our changing world. One nice thought from the Scientific American article is this- some philosophers claim that the series is evidence that "something" can be created out of "nothing" since both 1 and 0 are reasonable answers. Sounds spooky- something out of nothing. But maybe that should be a way to end our year- we can claim we created something, that is, areas of restored prairie through the work of a community of motivated individuals, as in Zoerb Prairie in July 2024...
... out of a sea of monotonous brush and trees... or shall I say, nothing... as in Zoerb in 2019:
