Many of the remaining patches of untilled (native) prairie in the Northern Glaciated Plains of North America are heavily invaded by the cool-season grasses, Bromus inermis and Poa pratensis. However, the native vegetation in these patches contains many warm-season species. This difference in phenology can be used to benefit restoration. We conducted an experiment to examine the efficacy of restoration treatments (mowing and prescribed fire) applied early in the growing season for consecutive years to decrease cool-season invasive plant biomass without impacting the native warm-season species. Our treatments were successful at significantly decreasing invasive cool-season plant biomass and increasing native warm-season plant biomass. No differences between treatments (mowing and prescribed fire) were found. Results suggest that incorporating differences in phenology between target and nontarget species into management may increase restoration success. Implications for Practice • Invasive species (such as Bromus inermis [smooth brome]and Poa pratensis [Kentucky bluegrass]) grow earlier in the season than co-occurring native plants in the Northern Glaciated Plains grasslands. • This difference in phenology can be used to target restoration treatments. • Restoration treatments applied early, when invasive cool-season grasses but not native warm-season grasses are active, can control the invasive grasses without negatively impacting warm-season grasses. • Repeated biomass removal (either through mowing or fire) early in the season decreases invasive cool-season grass biomass without decreasing native warm-season grass biomass. • Mowing may offer restoration practitioners an alternative to prescribed burning for controlling invasive cool-season grasses in the Northern Glaciated Plains grasslands.

Seedling establishment and performance are often limiting steps in many grassland restorations. The soil microbial community is thought to be a factor that contributes to the poor performance of seedlings. Therefore, we conducted a field test to examine the ability of four treatments to alter the soil microbial community and improve seedling performance during restoration. Treatments were commercially available bacterial inoculum, fungal inoculum, fungicide, and a bacteria/fungicide combination which were all designed and sold to enhance plant performance. We hypothesized that if the soil microbial community was limiting the performance of seedlings, then these products would remediate detrimental effects of the soil microbial community resulting in greater seedling performance. However, during the 2 years after restoration, no effect of the treatments was found. It is plausible that the treatments designed for agriculture or home garden settings were not appropriate for a wildland system.

No abstract