Nine miles from the heart of downtown Lincoln lies an ecological rarity.
Surrounded by farm fields and a retired Cold War-era bomb storage depot, a 230-acre plot of native prairie remains untouched.
Named for its distance from Lincoln’s urban core, Nine-Mile Prairie is one of the last tallgrass remnants that once dominated eastern Nebraska. Home to species such as big blue stem, Indiangrass and goldenrod, the prairie plants can reach peaks of 8 feet in the fall, when gold and red hues begin to replace the summer green.
But among the sea of grass and flowering plants is a now-common sight that alarms grassland experts, including David Wedin, who formerly oversaw the Nine-Mile Prairie: shrubs and trees.
“One of the things prairie conservation’s coming to grips with in the Midwest is ‘How much shrubs and trees (and) which shrubs and trees are acceptable?’” Wedin said. “Because we can never go back to no trees at all.
“The game has changed.”
Nebraska used to be 98% prairie. Agriculture, urban development and heavy grazing changed that, and much of the state’s native ecosystem has disappeared over time.
Although advocates continue to manage and restore the state’s remaining prairies, experts say that factors such as rising CO2 and increased atmospheric nitrate levels have created new conditions that favor woody and invasive species.
The Nine-Mile Prairie is owned by the University of Nebraska Foundation and managed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Center for Grassland Studies. The top priority: keeping the land a prairie.
But that is becoming harder to do.
At least once every three years, the Nine-Mile Prairie’s managers and student workers remove unwanted species and dead plant material by mowing, haying and conducting prescribed burns. They sometimes carefully use herbicides to keep woody species like dogwood and eastern red cedar trees at bay.
While these are typical prairie management practices, Wedin said they’re no longer enough. Shrubs and trees are growing faster than they can manage them.
One reason for the change, Wedin said, is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. While CO2 itself is essential for plants, extra CO2, he said, “tilts the balance away” from Nebraska’s dominant warm-season grasses that don’t benefit from it as much as shrubs, trees and cool-season grasses.
The shifting climate has also caused warmer winters, Wedin said, and cool-season grasses, shrubs and trees can establish themselves long before warm-season grasses and flowering plants start growing in mid- to late spring.
The changes, combined with extra nitrogen in the atmosphere primarily from farming, he said, mean conditions are stacked against tallgrass prairies. Land managers can’t get “too hung up on what was ‘natural’ in 1850,” Wedin said.
“I’m willing to let it go,” he said. “… As long as we’re removing biomass every three years, I can live with the dogwood and the sumac and the little red cedar seedlings.”
Prairies in North America formed around 10,000 years ago, when the climate warmed and the last major ice age ended. Indigenous tribes, such as the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, have long been intertwined with them.
Stacy Laravie, a Ponca member and 3x great-granddaughter of Chief Standing Bear, said the prairie was and is “a way of life.”
Living in earth lodges along the Niobrara and Missouri rivers in Nebraska, the Ponca farmed and hunted bison. They would also set fire to the prairie, a practice of many Great Plains tribes.
The fresh, nutritious growth after a burn would attract bison, Laravie said. It also created habitat for different plants and animals during regrowth phases and helped keep the shrubs and trees away.
“(Burning) was our guide to what happens within the season and next,” Laravie said. “The land spoke to us in that way.”
Without burning by indigenous tribes, areas of the state would have had more woodlands and less prairie, said Gerry Steinauer, Nebraska Game and Parks plant ecologist and botanist. Before the ice age ended, he said, Nebraska was predominantly spruce forest, not prairie.
Now, Nebraska is made up of four prairie ecoregions from east to west: tallgrass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, Sandhills prairie and shortgrass prairie.
Steinauer said only about 1% of the state’s tallgrass prairie remains in restored and preserved patches, and much of it is degraded. Most of it was plowed under by 1880 because eastern Nebraska’s fertile soil and higher precipitation rates made it ideal for homesteading farmers.
Urban sprawl in the 20th century has reduced it to even smaller fragments.
Nebraska is made up of four ecoregions from east to west: tallgrass prairie, mixed-grass prairie, Sandhills prairie and shortgrass prairie. This map depicts the vegetation as it was before European settlement. Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Conservation and Survey Division
Nebraska’s mixed-grass and shortgrass prairies are about 50% intact, and the Sandhills prairie remains about 90% intact, Steinauer said. Although they face similar threats to the tallgrass prairie, less precipitation and sandier soils have kept them from undergoing the same rapid decline.
Prairie types
Tallgrass prairie
The tallgrass prairie covers the eastern fourth of the state and receives the most precipitation, around 25-39 inches per year. Common grasses include big bluestem, Indiangrass, switchgrass and Canada wild rye. Common flowering plants include purple coneflower, leadplant and goldenrod. The vegetation typically averages 3 to 6 feet.
Mixed-grass prairie
The mixed-grass prairie covers the central part of the state, acting as the transition zone between the tallgrass and shortgrass prairies. Annual precipitation in the region ranges from 28 inches in the east to 20 inches in the west. In the eastern part, tallgrass species dominate. In the western part, shortgrass species dominate.
Sandhills prairie
The Sandhills prairie covers roughly 19,300 miles of land in north-central Nebraska. Annual precipitation in the region ranges from 23 inches in the east to less than 17 inches in the west. It contains nearly 700 native plant species, including many sand-adapted species such as sand bluestem and prairie sandreed. There are also many wetlands because of the area’s high water table from the Ogallala aquifer.
Shortgrass prairie
The shortgrass prairie covers the western part of the state and receives the least precipitation, around 12-17 inches per year. Common grasses include buffalo grass and blue grama. Common flowering plants include milkvetches, prickly pear and prairie coneflower. The vegetation rarely exceeds 10 inches in height.
While conservation groups are working to protect the state’s prairies, Steinauer said Nebraska is still “behind the eight ball” in prairie conservation.
The Prairie Plains Resource Institute is a nonprofit that preserves and restores tallgrass and mixed-grass prairies in the state. Founded in 1980 by Bill Whitney and his wife, the institute manages eight prairies totaling 6,512 acres, mostly in central and eastern Nebraska.
Whitney, who retired in 2019, said prairies are dependent on people. A large part of prairie conservation, he said, is educating a community to care for them.
“Restoration as a process is a great human thing to do,” Whitney said. “People that do it love it, and it’s going to catch on.”
To Chris Helzer, science and stewardship director for The Nature Conservancy, prairie management standards need to change, especially for tallgrass prairies.
Helzer, echoing Wedin at the Nine-Mile Prairie, said prairies are being “swamped out” by woody plants in the eastern part of the state because of increasing CO2. He also said the absence of large-range grazers such as pronghorn and bison is adding to the problem.
And those conditions are pushing west, Helzer said.
“We need to learn how to manage today’s grasslands as shrubbier grasslands than what we’ve been used to,” Helzer said, “and we need to figure out how to do that in a way that’s going to allow pollinators and a lot of wildlife species to thrive.”
A decade ago, Sarah Bailey of the Prairie Plains Resource Institute said she would see some woody species among the prairie grasses and flowers. Now, she notices a lot more of them in “much denser areas,” mostly in the state’s eastern tallgrass prairies.
Once woody species start taking over a prairie, they start to “choke out” the prairie understory, said Bailey, the institute’s conservation and education director. And without access to consistent sunlight, most native plants wither and die.
“We never want to lose prairie ecosystems,” Bailey said. “That’s where we see the most biodiversity in this region.”
Prairie diversity
Chris Helzer, from The Nature Conservancy, created the Square Meter Photography Project in 2018 and began photographing as many species as he could find within the same square meter of tallgrass prairie over a yearlong timeframe.
In the 2024 version of his project, he photographed over 320 prairie species, ranging from a purple leadplant to a honeybee being ambushed by a crab spider on a milkweed plant.
His goal: show people the diversity of prairies.
Standing in a large prairie, Helzer said, it feels like you can see the entire world from horizon to horizon. But in a smaller prairie, the best way to view it, he said, is from below.
Photography Project. Photo by Dakota Altman/Platte Basin Timelapse
“There are all these stories that are playing out, sort of hidden underneath the vegetation that you don’t get to see until you sit down and look at it,” Helzer said. “And the longer you look, the more you see.”
Helzer said violet plants create seed pods that pop many feet away in an event called ballistic seed dispersal. Those seed pods, he explained, have nutritional packs attached to their exterior that attract ants. Once ants find the seeds, they give their young the nutritional packs. The seeds are then placed in a compost pile, which is the perfect place for new violet plants to grow.
And that’s just one plant.
Helzer said grasslands are “one of the most diverse communities in the world.” Much of his work as a scientist, he said, is solving how to optimize grassland use while conserving its biodiversity.
A good example of that, he said, is happening in the Sandhills.
For 33 years, the Sandhills Task Force, a nonprofit based in Broken Bow, has promoted conservation and private, profitable ranching.
Shelly Kelly, the task force’s executive director, said they typically complete 50-100 projects a year, with assistance from conservation partners.
In 2024, the task force helped private landowners improve over 77,000 acres of Sandhills prairie through practices such as prescribed burns, woody species control and modified grazing plans that allow for regrowth.
“Every piece of land that we touch, we’ve impacted for the better,” Kelly said, “and probably increased the chances of it either staying prairie or improved the productivity of it.”
The Sandhills remains one of the largest intact temperate grasslands on Earth, spanning about 12 million acres in north-central Nebraska. But it has also undergone cropland conversion and faces threats from woody encroachment, Kelly said.
Most landowners are open to conservation switches that will help their ranching operations, Kelly said. And the task force, she said, helps move things along.
To Helzer, the story of Nebraska’s prairies isn’t depressing. Instead, he said, it’s a story of survival and resilience.
“We have a lot of work to do, but I still think there’s a ton of reasons to be optimistic about the future of prairies in Nebraska,” he said. “… I think the biggest challenge we have is getting people to care.”
9 Comments
Slightly over a decade ago, there was a controversy at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that they were blocked from doing recovery work after a disaster because of an “endangered” mouse. Challenge me on this and look up news articles about the time FEMA efforts in Colorado were stymied by the “Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.” A lot of FEMA employees felt this was particularly silly, that they couldn’t do their jobs because someone might accidentally step on a rodent that people would be trying to kill if it ever got inside their home. News articles may tell you that FEMA was pushing to protect the mouse and local governments were the ones mad about it, but I will tell you that real FEMA employees thought it was stupid too. Environmental activists within the Obama administration were the ones actually pulling the strings.
The type of moral panic this article is trying to drum up reminds me of that. “Oh dear, oh no, this one particular type of grass isn’t doing as well as… another type of grass… because of Climate Change!!! AHHHH!!!”
Guys… it’s grass. And not even particularly attractive grass that people want to see growing in their yard. Under any other circumstance it would be considered a weed. And yeah, we dug it up in order to plant farms and build cities, because thats what we do. It’s how we survive. You aren’t a gazelle, you can’t eat grass. You need a home to live in, actual food to eat, and a store you can drive to where you can buy that food. This is called civilization, and you may have incidentally heard it mentioned briefly when you were in school.
This article said only one thing that made sense: Land managers can’t get “too hung up on what was ‘natural’ in 1850.”
I concur. Which is why this article shouldn’t have been written at all. Stop obsessing over endangered mice and obscure grass.
I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t spend a lot of time outdoors.
I do not need to guess that personal attacks are against the rules of this site, but moderators choose to only selectively enforce that specific rule, as demonstrated by your comment.
Great story! Dr. Wedin is the best. For those interested in the science of grasslands in Nebraska, I would highly recommend checking out the Center for Grassland Studies Fall Seminar Series webpage, where you can see experts in many different areas of grassland studies discussing the challenges and opportunities afforded by our state’s grasslands and the important work Nebraska ranchers and scientists are doing in the Sandhills: grassland.unl.edu/extension-outreach/fall-seminar-series
Also, we love walking our dogs around Nine-Mile Prairie (when it isn’t tick season!) Beautiful area that everyone should check out on a nice day.
By your own way of thinking, let’s not worry about the future of mankind and our interaction with AI.
If mankind gets eliminated, so what. Its civilization and what happens just happens.
Whose way of thinking Jerold? You made this comment as a fresh post, rather than as a reply to another user, so we don’t have any way to know whom you are talking to.
At any rate, I’m still a bit confused by your argument, and not only because I don’t know who it was aimed at. You say that AI wiping out humanity would be “civilization.” But who said that? How did you come up with that definition of “civilization” exactly?
What you are arguing about here is the stuff of literal science fiction. In the “Terminator” series of movies, AI rises up and tries to wipe out humanity, but time travel is used to defeat it. Or in “I, Robot” with Will Smith, the AI attempts to become a “rogue servitor” where it chooses to strip humanity of it’s freedom in order to protect humans against themselves. Don’t even get me started on whatever that Battlestar Galactica reboot was trying to do. These events are works of fiction, but clearly show that humans are pondering the morality and implications of AI that outgrows it’s creators. And in every case humanity fights back and usually wins, albeit through outlandish mechanisms such as diving through the air with a robotic arm to inject the giant machine brain with magic eraser serum or whatever Will Smith was doing there.
My point being that humans obviously wouldn’t consider it a true “civilization” if we were wiped out and replaced with automated machines. But humans are not prairie grass. Humans are thinking and feeling organisms, and depending on your worldview and religious beliefs, humans may also be possessed of immortal souls that have infinite value. Prairie grass does not have a soul, nor intelligence. And AI might have intelligence (depending on how you define “intelligence”), but definitely not a soul. Prairie grass, humans and AI are not at all in the same categories of life.
All things considered, I don’t see how you equate science fiction scenarios of AI doomsday with the climate alarmism of this article. Unless of course your point was that climate alarmism is as equally fictional as robotic terminators, in which case I agree with you on that part.
This comparison between climate change and AI is actually pretty interesting. Anyone else here ever heard of the “Rationalism” movement and “Effective Altruism” taking place in Silicon Valley?
Back in the 2000s, some internet philosopher wrote a series of edgy opinions called “The Sequences” which is apparently the basis of this near-cult belief system. People actually get together in groups (a lot like a bible study) to sit around and discuss the allegedly deep philosophical meaning of these opinions that some guy on the internet wrote a few decades ago. Naturally, one of their core beliefs is that AI is eventually going to go wild and kill us all.
This leads to the “Effective Altruism” angle. Some of these people claim that the best way to donate money to charity is to do some serious galaxy brain math to determine how to make your donation impact the largest number of people. If you donate money to save one person, thats small potatoes. But donate money to save millions of people? Maybe some people in the hypothetical future who haven’t even been born yet? Thats where the real altruism is, they argue.
But that then leads to the conclusion that since AI is eventually going to go wild and kill us all, obviously the best way to engage in “Effective Altruism” with your money is to stop the eventual rise of the rogue AI! So all these people end up donating millions of dollars to obscure researchers who claim they are going to do… *something* (nobody knows exactly what, really) to stop the inevitable rise of the machines.
Now, does that sound familiar at all? A hypothetical future doomsday scenario, where the best course of action is to drastically alter the way you live your life today in order to stop the coming destruction? And a small group of elite individuals in a far away place are getting rich by supposedly preventing it on your behalf?
But it’s not crazy. The crazy thing would be to continue living your life without worrying about the boogey man, right?
U R Right!!
Thankyou for this condensed article outlining our loss of biological diversity.
In outlining the speed of which Climate Change is moving across NE, it documents Foote’s presentation to the Academy, with no serious challenge in 170 years since then, while emphasizing E.O. Wilson’s short –
“The quenching of life’s exuberance will be more consequential to
humanity than all of present-day global warming, ozone depletion
and pollution combined.”
I find it astounding that folks still want to have more babies, recognizing the difficulty and pain those children will have in this grossly overpopulated Earth.