This highly unscientific. It is typical in ecology which many times is more ideology than science. In the first part, we reed this: "Our results show that Eastern redcedar is increasing in density in Kansas prairies from research that we have studied. Invasion of redcedar has been estimated to be 56.9 trees per hectare per year (reference??). When redcedar become more abundant than grass and begin to take over, they decrease the amount of plant species growing under them and lower biodiversity according to our sources and data. There are more plant species found in native prairie than in redcedar forest. In order to control this problem, proper management techniques need to be taken to prevent further invasion. Our literature review shows that with proper control, Eastern redcedar can be kept under control and not pose a problem." What is a problem or not, is a personal point of view. If I like redcedar more than grass, it is not a problem, it is very good. Scientists can never tell us whether something should be perceived as a problem or not. They can only tell us, in an unbiased way, what happens and whether the change is significant or not. It is ideology that tells us what we should think and do about something. Not science. This again is something a society has to decide. For instance: do the people like it or not? Do they want to spend money on it, if they don't like it? Is there money for it? Does eradication help, is it feasable? Is eradication of plants something we think is "good" as a society? Etc? No scientist can tell us that. What are the longterm costs of constant eradication? What if we stop for ten years (because of economy for instance): will all efforts be in vain?? What are the long term effects of this invasion on biodiversity? I can understand some PLANTS of course wil not survive in a forest, but what plants will return and on what time scale? How will the biodiversity look like int 10-50 and 100 years? In virtually all cases I know, forests (native and nonantive) carry much more biodiverisity than any grassland. Is biodiversity a good marker for what is good or bad? For what is desirable and what is not in the landscape? Why? Why is it not esthectics, or why shouldn't we look at funghi tat grow under these trees, or animal life or a combination of those? It is like climatologists writing papers on seaice decline and than telling us what we should do. That we should boycot the US as the highest emitter of CO2 per capita. Or that we should sanction China for it. In their free time on ther personal accoutn, they ar efree to do so. But again: not in scientifici papers. BTW: You'll never read that in climatology, as climatologists can only say what is significant and what is not and that is the only thing they do say. climate change is a science fact: what wil happen to the prairie if temperatures rise in the next 20-70 years? Do we know that? Another point I found is that prairies and especially infertile parts are abandoned. I am not 100% sure, bu that is what I read. If so: you need to manage more and mor ehabitat in order to keep the prairie the way it is. Still, globalwarming could change everything as many species are living within climatological boundaries. But this is a good example of what ecology is: not scientific (read the par that rodents are considered bad, how is that scientific??) but ideological. They don't observe things only and give us therir impartial data, nope, they also tell us what we should think about it or feel that if others thinks likewise (farmers) etc this add to their findings somehow. In short: this is in the line of ecology nowadays. Pick up 5 books on invasion ecology and you'll find little evidence (or even clear evidence to the contrary, like I did) but a whole lot of value laden wording. Now these words together to many people sound plausble, but in my mind they indoctrinate the students who read this on their university. And so they'll continue to do research this way with little evidence, little data on statistical significance but a lot of assumptions.

I live in the northland. First they need to check any rules to see what changes they can make some will not allow anything other than in pots. From the discription of one tree in a field I think they live in Kansas City North of the river which has multiple types of land. Theirs is probably all fill. North Kansas City is a small town in itself. North Kansas City is next to the Missouri river in a flat area which which may be soggy when we have too much rain. My DH just told me there is a retirement residence in a part where they tore down all the senior apartments and build taller buildings. I would suggest thymes, zinnas. Kansas City has numerous gardening societies. One of the umberella groups is the Garden Center Association. It is a group of various garden groups that used to use a building in a park called Loose Park just south of the plaza area. This groups has a meeting the third Saturday of the month normally at the MO Conservation Department building just south of 4700 Troost. Coffee and goodies at nine am and various types of lectures at 9:30. Center has wonderful gardens behind the building for different types of woodlands, ponds, grasslands, etc. Amazing how much is packed in such a small area. If you can post the general area of the northland I can give better suggestions and locations of nurseries and plant that can provide decent plants at a reasonable cost.

Thanks guys. ~Emoryi are common in many areas of Kansas. Pretty much anywhere west of Waubunsee County along I-70 all the way out to Ellis County is good for them. Wayne made an excellent comparison in saying that they are comparable to obsoletus in Missouri, they may even be much more common. You can research them and ask questions about them on this website... www.smoky-hills.com/kansas Now to the good stuff... I visited this den of emoryi last Feb... I lifted the steal cover to the well and this is what I saw... Seventy plus emoryi with Coluber and Thamnophis scattered about the pile... And a view down in the well... And a somewhat artsy shot... Pretty cool huh? ;) chad

note that it is an aquatic .... can you deal with that??? ken https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Justicia+americana&t=ffcm&ia=about