1. May 14, 2014
Ecological Restoration Project Report:
Prairie and Forest Restoration at
Indian Creek Nature Reserve
Marie Brake, Alyssa Lopez, and Georgina Simson

2. Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
a. Ecological Restoration Questions: ...................................................................................... 4
II. Background............................................................................................................................ 5
III. Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................12
A. Study Area ........................................................................................................................12
B. Herbicide and Removal.....................................................................................................14
C. Planting Natives................................................................................................................15
D. Biodiversity Measurements...............................................................................................16
E. Communications with Client ..............................................................................................17
F. Class Participation.............................................................................................................17
G. Timeline............................................................................................................................17
IV. Results ................................................................................................................................19
V. Discussion and Conclusion...................................................................................................22
VI. Reflection ............................................................................................................................22
VII. Annotated Bibliography.......................................................................................................25

3. Abstract
The project herein describes the efforts of an ecological restoration project from 5 March 2014
until 9 May 2014 at Indian Creek Nature Reserve in Oxford, Ohio. Within the timespan of the
project, a prairie and deciduous forest were sites for the eradication of nonnative, invasive
species in Ohio such as amur honeysuckle and autumn olive. The project was accomplished by
cutting plants, applying herbicide, and through a prairie burn. Biodiversity measurements were
taken, showing no significant difference in species counts in different areas of the honeysuckle-
infested forest. The project was a success and future work and observations will determine the
health of the land on the property.

4. I. Introduction
This report describes our ecological restoration project within the Indian Creek Nature
Reserve (ICNR) in Oxford, Ohio (Figure 1). The forest and prairie ecosystems we focused on
had been previously restored due to the management of our client Anne Geddes. Our project
continued these efforts by the removal of invasive species, which threaten the quality and
function of the two systems. Our project also involved planting native species. These changes
helped to promote the persistence of native plant species and provided more suitable habitat for
other native species.
Figure 1. This is an aerial photo, supplied by Google Maps (2014), of the Indian Creek Nature Reserve in Oxford, Ohio, where our
project took place.

5. Our client presented a multitude of ideas that could be used to restore different parts of
Indian Creek Nature Reserve. A prairie burn was a very high priority on the client’s list along
with nonnative invasive species removal. She also was excited to plant native understory trees
and shrubs along the edge of the disturbed area between the prairie and the forest.
Understanding the gravity of invasive species impacts on habitats, we decided that our
restoration team should aid in removing invasives in both a prairie area and a forest on the
client’s property. Our work partly focused on maintaining areas that were partially restored but
were not yet completely stable. The work done in the forest continued along the same lines in
terms of eradicating as many invasive plants as we could with the time and supplies that were
given to us.
Our research questions focused on restoring the prairie and forested land on Indian Creek
Nature Reserve. The questions focus first on invasive species; in class and in discussion with our
client, invasive species have been a focal point in ecological restoration in Ohio and around the
country. We discussed with Anne different methods used to exterminate invasive species; part
of our research concerned the best way to eradicate prominent invasives such as amur
honeysuckle. We hope that by documenting our endeavors we have provided further information
and encouragement for others who might restore a prairie or a forest.
a. Ecological Restoration Questions:
Going into this project, there were a number of questions we wanted to consider both before and
after the completion of the project:
1. Will we be able to remove a significant amount of invasive species?
- The two main techniques we implemented to remove invasive species were the prairie burn and
cutting with herbicide application. We cleared a significant area on the forest hill and eradicated
many unwanted plants in the prairie. We hope that our application of herbicide prevents future
regrowth.
2. Will we be able to foster native plant growth through the removal of invasive species?
- By removing invasive species from the ecosystems, native plants have less competition for
space and other resources. Whether or not native plants will be able to effectively spread to these
newly opened spaces may depend on the present cover of the invasive species. Our invasive
removal techniques should be effective and aid in native plant growth as spring progresses. One
study showed that following three seasons of prairie burns, the percent cover of native forbs

6. significantly increased (Bahm et al. 2011). If a significant amount of invasives were removed
through our efforts (and future efforts), and fire management and herbicide application
continues, we predict that more native plants will be able to grow and persist on the Geddes
property. We predict that native species will be able to grow even more in areas that were cleared
twice (once in the past and once by our recent project). Moreover, the native species we planted
(should they survive) should prevent invasives from growing by closing niches.
3. Will the prairie burn have an adverse effect on the prairie due to open niches for invasives?
- Studies have been conducted that show the negative effects of burning an area prone to
invasives, such as providing an opening for invasives to take over the ecosystem (Grace et al.
2002). We predict that our efforts, however, combated the possible invasive species. After the
burn, we went through the prairie to find those invasive species that were only charred, not
killed, by the fire. They were then cut and sprayed with Garlon-biodiesel herbicide. To fill
potential niches, we planted natives fairly close to three edges of the prairie.
4. How can we use our project to inspire other private landowners to commit their land to
habitat health?
- Throughout the project, we took photographs and made note of our activities and changes in the
habitat on the Indian Creek Nature Reserve. These notes and photographs were posted on an
internet blog, updated as we worked on the land. Hopefully our work will show other landowners
the significant difference we made, why we dedicated our time to make this difference, and show
them how they can foster a healthier, functioning ecosystem on their own land. As Anne Geddes
told us, once people see that we can create this restored environment and “survive,” other people
will see that they can do the same.
II. Background
Although there were many wonderful potential projects for ecological restoration on the
land at the Indian Creek Nature Reserve, the purpose of this work was to help restore the quality
and function of the prairie and forest ecosystems that have experienced increasing cover of
invasive species. By focusing on nonnative species, we could concentrate our efforts to make a
significant impact on the prairie and forest functionality.
Invasives vs. Natives
Invasive, or exotic, species refer to those that have been introduced into an ecosystem in
which they do not naturally occur. Often exotic species will thrive in areas to which they have

7. been introduced because they lack natural predators and are able to reproduce at faster rate than
many native species; these qualities allow invasive species to out-compete the natives, usually
resulting in their displacement from the system. Such changes can dramatically alter the quality,
structure, and function of the affected ecosystem (D’Antonio & Meyerson 2002).
Native species, plants and otherwise, have often evolved together and may rely heavily
upon interactions with one another, such that a change in the abundance of one species can affect
the abundance of many species, which fulfill a particular niche in an ecosystem (Tallamy 2009).
Invasive species can affect other aspects of an ecosystem by changing biogeochemical cycles
and disturbance regimes (Gordon 1998). These changes can then affect recruitment rates of
native species by affecting their ability to obtain proper resources, such as space and sustenance
(Gordon 1998). As a result, areas become dominated by a few species and harbor less diversity.
This occurs because these species contribute much less to others and the ecosystem as a whole,
and diminish the amount of niches available to other species (Tallamy 2009). The prairie and
forest ecosystems in the ICNR have had many invasive species removed to avoid or reverse
these consequences.
Prairie Ecosystems
As previously mentioned, one of main objectives was to continue restoration on the
prairie at ICNR. We worked on many aspects that describe the upkeep of a newly-restored
prairie. As described by the Ohio Division of Wildlife, prairies require minimal upkeep once
they are well-established, but the initial restored prairie will need work and attention until it
reaches this point of self-maintenance (Ohio Division of Wildlife).
A prairie is a very distinct area of land with characteristic plant species; these plants are
the defining feature of prairies (Ohio Prairie Association 2013). Ohio prairies are made of a
variety of grasses and wildflowers, including but not limited to the common big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii), indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), prairie coneflower (Ratibida
pinnata), and prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum) (Ohio Prairie Association 2013).
Fire is instrumental in maintaining prairie ecosystems (Ohio Prairie Association 2013;
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1994). Native prairie plants, grasses and forbs, are
able to withstand fire because of their extensive root growth. These plants have roots that can
extend several feet deep in the soil (Figure 2). Fire allows for prairies to thrive by stimulating
new plant growth (Ohio Prairie Association 2013). As Anne explained to us, “it’s all in the
roots”. Fire is also important for prairie ecosystems because it can prevent invasive species from
becoming established and changing the function of the system (Grace et al. 2002). Other species,
like woody trees and shrubs, have root systems and life stages that are less adapted or intolerant

8. to fire. However, fire can also represent an opportunity for invaders to become more established
if seeds are able to germinate or if the plants can take advantage of periods when fire is absent
(Grace et al. 2002). Seeds of invasive plants might also be more abundant in the soil, so if some
invasives are cleared from the area, this may still represent an opportunity for invasives to thrive
with little to no competition (D’Antonio & Meyerson 2002; Wilson et al. 2004). Some research
suggests, however, that these issues of burning being less effective may arise from fire
management not occurring at the optimal time or even at a frequent enough rate (Schramm 1990;
Emery & Gross 2005).
Figure 2: Full view of prairie plant extension in the soil (Natura 2012)
Restoration combats many issues of ecological conservation, including protecting species
that are or may become endangered and fostering biodiversity (Hansen 2010). Prairies are large
habitats that support many kinds of wildlife, such as pheasants, songbirds, insects, and many
mammals (Ohio Division of Wildlife; Audubon Ohio 2010). Unfortunately, according to the
Ohio Division of Wildlife, less than 1% of Ohio’s prairies still exist. Figure 3 illustrates the
prairie land cover present before early American settlement, most of which is now absent.
Prairies host a variety of unique niches that need to be protected in order to maintain the plethora
of biodiversity they support and their valuable ecosystem functions. Prairies prevent topsoil
erosion, improve water quality by filtering storm water, provide valuable wildlife habitat,
sequester carbon, and serve as hay sources (Hansen 2010; Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources). Prairies are also important for their historical significance and their possibilities for
research (Hansen 2010). Therefore, they need to be protected from invasives and restored to the
best of our abilities.

9. Figure 3: Ohio’s original prairie coverage (Ohio Prairie Association)
Forest Ecosystems
In addition to the prairie, Anne
Geddes’ land holds part of the eastern
deciduous forest (Figure 4), which is a
sub sect of the biome temperate
deciduous forest. Temperate deciduous
forests are found in cool, rainy areas of
the Northern hemisphere. These forests
are unique in that their leaves fall once
a year, which is due to cold weather
conditions and reduced photoperiod,
which lead to cessation in chlorophyll
production and thus senescence of
leaves (Vasseur 2012).
Figure 4: Eastern deciduous forest (Lesser 2013)

10. Forests are an important source of biodiversity and provide many ecological services,
including serving as a major carbon sink. This service is critical on the global scale as a natural
and effective means to sequester carbon and slow climate change (Reich 2002). Unfortunately,
once disturbed, this type of forest has been shown to have a very low rate of regeneration, and
may never return to the original level of biodiversity if left to passive dispersal. Studies show
that adaptive management and monitoring, including invasive removal and native seed(ling)
planting) have been effective methods of restoration. (Vasseur 2012).
The eastern deciduous forest was once the major landscape in the eastern United States.
This vast swath of forest spanned from New England to central Florida, and as far west as the
Mississippi River (Dyer 2006). There are over 100 species of trees native to the Eastern
Deciduous Forest (Hardin et al 2001) (Table 1). Resulting from human disturbance and
fragmentation, these forests have become diminished and therefore may be more susceptible to
disease (Vasseur 2012). The eastern deciduous forest is characterized by its layers. The healthy
forest should have multiple layers (Figure 5), including a lichen and liverwort layer, a moss
layer, an herb/forbs layer, a small shrub layer, a large shrub and small tree layer, and a large tree
layer. Each of these layers help to ensure a productive, healthy ecosystem, rich in biodiversity
(Verstraeten et al 2013).
Table 1: Tree and Shrub Genera/Species common to the Eastern Deciduous Forest
Predominant Trees
(Hardin et al. 2001)
Understory Trees and Shrubbery
(Hardin et al. 2001)
Ash (Fraxinus)
Basswood (Tilia)
Beech (Fagus)
Birch (Betula)
Cherry (Prunus)
Chestnut (Castanea)
Eastern Hemlock ((Tsuga canadensis)
Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus
virginiana)
Elm (Ulmus)
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Hickory (Carya)
Honey Locust (Gleditsia tricanthos)
Maple (Acer)
Oak (Quercus)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar)
Sycamore ((Platanus)
Azalea (Rhododendron)
Blueberry (Vaccinium)
Buckeye (Aesculus)
Chokeberry (Aronia)
Cranberry (Viburnum)
Dogwood (Cornus)
Huckleberry ( Gaylussacia)
Magnolia (Magnolia)
Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
Paw Paw (Asimina triloba)
Pepperbush (Clethera)
Raspberry (Rubus strigosus)
Redbud (Cercis canadensis)
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica)

11. Tulip Tree (Liriodendron
Tupelo (Nyssa)
Walnut (Juglans)
White Pine (Pinus strobus)
Figure 5: Layers of the Eastern deciduous forest (S-cool Youth Marketing Limited)
The forbs/herbacious level is quite diverse and may vary greatly. It is an integral part of
the forest, providing necessary nutrients for insects and other herbivores. Invasives such as amur
honeysuckle (Lonicera maacki ), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), autumn olive (Elaeagnus
umbellata), garlic mustard (Allaria petiola) have little competition in their non-native habitat and
have significantly fewer predators than natives (Gordon 1998). The effects of these invasive
species, most notably amur honeysuckle, have been a dramatic reduction in shrub and forbs level
diversity (Henkin 2013). Invasive plants have to a great extent homogenized this level of the
forest (Verstraeten et al. 2013). Figures 6 and 7 illustrate understory areas in the temperate forest
before and after amur honeysuckle invasion.

12. Figure 6: Eastern deciduous forest with native understory Figure 7: Eastern deciduous forest invaded by amur honeysuckle
(Weather Underground 2013). (Boone County Arboretum 2011).
Reduction in biodiversity is likely to negatively impact the forest ecosystem. Insects
which feed on native shrubbery and forbs level plants may be less inclined to feed on invasives,
resulting in a lower density of arthropods in the forest. Native birds have fewer prey with which
to feed their young, leading to a decrease in bird populations. While neither insects nor small
birds in the eastern deciduous forest have been characterized as keystone species, as the
ecosystem simplifies, their relative importance grows. Therefore, the keystone may not
necessarily be the apex predator in the system (Tallamy 2009).
Removal Techniques
There are many different methods that can be employed to eradicate invasives, and an
extensive list of these methods is described in “General Principles for Controlling Nonnative
Invasive Plants,” an article by James Miller. First, invasives can be mechanically removed or
burned. These methods are not effective by themselves, as they fail to kill the roots of the
invasives and the plants can grow back (Miller 2003). When coupled with other methods,
however, adding burns or mechanical removals with herbicide application can produce positive
results (Miller 2003). Two common herbicide methods include foliar spraying and basal
spraying. Foliar sprays (Figure 8) are directly applied to the leaves of the invasive, which means
they can be easily targeted (and native species can be avoided) (Miller 2003). The use of a
glyphosate spray like Roundup is most effective, sprayed on both the leaves and stumps for the
best known results (Conservation Commission of Missouri 2014). Basal sprays (Figure 9) are
mixed with Garlon or biodiesel and applied to the lower parts of a young plant’s woody base
(Miller 2003). Implementing these practices encourages native plant growth, as more sunlight
will get through to the ground layers after the removal, and there will be less competition for

13. resources. When the old niches open up, native shrubs and wildflowers should begin to
germinate (Henkin 2013).
Figure 8. Foliar spray application Figure 9. Basal spray application
(Miller 2014). (Miller 2014).
III. Materials and Methods
Our project design was composed of two parts. First, we removed invasive species such as amur
honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii.) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata). The second part of
our project centered on promoting native species and planting them on the land at Indian Creek
Nature Reserve. We kept a log via our Ecological Restoration blog (Indian Creek) to keep track
of our progress and recorded species richness from our transects.
A. Study Area
Our study area consisted of an 11-12 acre prairie located between small wetland areas
and forests (Figure 10). The work started before the prairie was burned. The tall grasses present
before the burn were mostly flattened from the winter’s snowfall. Initially some woody plants
and many invasives were present. We noticed that more invasive species like honeysuckle
appeared towards the front of the prairie. The area was fairly flat.
We also worked on a forested area that was located next to the prairie on a steep hillside
about 50 meters above Indian Creek (Figure 10). The hill had a very steep slope of about 45
degrees, although overall the slope angles varied in different locations. The honeysuckle had
completely taken over the hillside. Honeysuckle density varied; in areas that had not been
cleared, the group could easily see a thicker density compared to the areas our client had been
cleared about 3 years prior. Also, the group noticed that honeysuckle was naturally thicker in
areas in higher to mid-elevations on the hill.

14. Figure 10. Map of study area, depicting prairie boundaries, transect lines, and planting locations.

15. B. Herbicide and Removal
For the first part of our project, we used loppers, hand saws, and chainsaws to cut
invasive species in the forest and prairie (Figure 11). After cutting the invasives, we coated the
remaining stumps with a Garlon/biodiesel mixture in a 1:3 ratio, respectively, using a hand-pump
sprayer. Basal sprays are a good method for the February-March timeline of the project, as these
sprays are most effective when leaves are not present (Miller 2003).
Although not specifically requested by our client, we made small brush piles on the
hillside of cut honeysuckle. This enabled us to clearly see the area and identify any small plants
that still needed removal. If any small honeysuckle was pulled and not cut, the small plants were
placed on top of the brush piles to elevate the roots. This method, recommended to the group by
Anne Geddes, would prevent pulled honeysuckle from re-rooting.
Figure 11: Methods for removal and herbicide. (Left) Loppers cut the honeysuckle close to the ground. (Center) Herbicide was
sprayed on the base close to the ground. (Right) Brush piles were made.
Our client Anne Geddes arranged for Al Gerhart of Butler County Pheasants Forever
Ohio Chapter #780 to facilitate the burn with three other trained volunteers. The burn took place
April 16, 2014. Before the prairie was burned, it was difficult to see the invasive woody plants
such as honeysuckle and autumn olive, as they were hiding underneath the grass or camouflaged
among the grass. However, we did our best to cut down any that we saw using loppers and
handsaws. Like in the forested area, herbicide was sprayed directly on the stumps of cut material
to prevent regrowth. After the prairie was burned, the same methods were used but it was much
easier to see what we were working with (Figure 12).

16. Figure 12: Woody plant/invasive removal in the prairie before the burn (left), a few hours after the burn (right).
C. Planting Natives
After implementing invasive species removal methods, our team planted native
seedlings. This practice promotes native establishment and serves as a preventative method
against the return or growth of invasive species. Past experiments have shown that when invasive
removal was not followed by native planting, invasives were more likely to return to the sites
after removal (Carlson & Gorchov 2004; Miller 2003).
Native species were purchased from Cardno JFNew, an ecological consulting and
restoration firm. We planted bare root seedlings of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum), and nannyberry (Viburnum lentago) (Table 2). We alternated the
seedling species and planted them about 5 ft. apart around the outskirts of the forested area lining
the prairie (Figure 10 and Figure 13). Soil was supplemented with compost, since some areas
contained a large amount of clay (Figure 13, left). This area was particularly vulnerable to
invasion as it was disturbed. The shrubs and small trees selected are native to the area and an
excellent substitute for the amur honeysuckle that we removed.
Table 2. Native species planted
Species Name Number of Seedlings Planted
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) 25
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) 25
Nannyberry (Viburnum lentago) 25

17. Figure 13. Planting natives
D. Biodiversity Measurements
In order to assess species richness, we laid down three transects in the forested area of
our client’s property (Figure 10). One transect was laid on a control area that would not see
honeysuckle removal. Another transect was laid on an area that our client had previously
removed honeysuckle three years prior. This area had seen some honeysuckle repopulation and
needed to be cleared again. Our last transect was placed on an area that we removed honeysuckle
from for the first time. In this way we were able to compare species richness relative to amur
honeysuckle removal over time.
We specifically assessed the understory layers of the forest because these are the layers
most affected by the invasive plants (Henkin 2013). To be as accurate as possible while also
being time efficient, we used one dimensional 25 meter transect lines (Fidelibus & Mac Aller
1993). Every five meters, we laid down a one meter tape perpendicular to our transects, with our
transect(s) being in the middle of the meter tape, with .5m on each side of the transect (Figure
14). On May 1, 2014, species richness counts were taken at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25m marks on each
transect. This time was selected as the forbs level had begun to grow.

18. Figure 14: Transect with perpendicular meter tape (left) used for assessing species richness (right)
E. Communications with Client
Our project of course was focused around our client, Anne Geddes. Areas that concerned
her were of top priority. She was updated with emails and oral communication on our project,
and was invited to oversee and/or gauge our progress. Anne was the main go-to if we had any
questions or concerns.
F. Class Participation
Our project was quite extensive and extra help from the class was very beneficial to the
project. Numerous classmates came and helped us cut down honeysuckle on the forested hill and
apply herbicide. Working together enabled us to efficiently clear more honeysuckle in less time.
Also, the client Anne Geddes wanted the whole class to learn from the prairie burn,
which was conducted by a professional on April 16, 2014. After the burn, the class helped clear
charred remains and remove invasives still present. With their help, the prairie was almost
completely finished in one afternoon.
G. Timeline
Week 1 (February 26): We finalized our proposal and scheduled potential
workdays/times with our client.
Week 2 (March 5): We examined one area of the Geddes property. We examined a
riparian area that had been over-run with honeysuckle. Although parts had been
previously cleared, the area was very large and most parts had not been controlled.

19. Week 3 (March 12): This week, we placed transects in three areas along the Creek with
honeysuckle. Later this week, however, we decided with our client that another area
would be more ideal for our work and data. After this trial and error, we found the site
where the project took place.
Week 4 (March 19): The group put down three 25m transects in the forested area on the
hill. We placed one in the control that we would not clear, another in a
previously-controlled area to be re-managed, and another in an area that had never been
cleared that we wanted to work in. The transects ran parallel to each other. Later this
week we set out with hedge clippers, hand saws, and spray bottles of Garlon and started
eradicating the honeysuckle in the forest.
Week 5 (March 26): The group did not meet this week due to university holidays.
Week 6 (April 2): Upon returning from spring break, the group returned to the hillside
and worked to remove honeysuckle. The area experienced some rainfall, making the hill
very slick. We worried about erosion factors affecting our forest site.
Week 7 (April 9): This week we started our work on the prairie. Although we had initially
believed that the burn would have occurred by this point, it had been postponed to wait
for appropriate weather circumstances. We walked through the prairie and found woody
plants (mostly invasive) and cut them. Garlon was then applied.
Week 8 (April 16): On April 16, the conditions were finally ideal and the prairie was
burned by our burn crew. A few hours later, the class came out to help. We split the class
into two groups; half of the class went to the forest and cleared honeysuckle, while the
other half cleared the prairie of invasives/woody plants. The invasives were much easier
to see in the prairie since all the tall grass had been burned.
Week 9 (April 23): This week, we finished our work on the prairie. There were a few
small areas left to clear, which we finished in a morning. The next day, the group and our
client planted the dogwoods and nannyberry along two old fence rows that bordered
another small prairie section.
Week 10 (April 30): Our group worked on the forest and honeysuckle, continuing with
the Garlon application. Later, species counts were conducted on the transects we had
placed earlier. Finally, we finished planting the dogwoods/nannyberry along another
fence row next to an agriculture field.
Week 11 (May 7): For our last week, we continued to eradicate honeysuckle on the forest
hill. Although we worked hard, the area was quite large and honeysuckle remained. We

20. took more measurements on the hill. The group also went back to the site we originally
looked at and chain-sawed some larger honeysuckle.
Future recommendations: It will be important for these restoration efforts to continue in
order to maintain the forest and prairie ecosystems. To achieve this, we recommend
continued herbicide application to stifle the growth of invasive species. Specifically, in
the fall a foliar herbicide might make honeysuckle removal easier. It is also important to
maintain a regular fire management regime for the prairie; we recommend every 2-3
years. Continued surveying is also recommended for an extensive and current database of
biodiversity on Indian Creek Nature Reserve.
IV. Results
We measured species richness every 5 meters along each of the three transects (Table 3).
Given the small number of samples collected, the data were not normally distributed. We used R
statistical software to perform a nonparametric Kruskal Wallis rank sum test to determine
significant differences between species richness and transect type for each of the distance groups.
There was no significant difference in species richness between transects at the 5m, 10m, 15m,
20m, or 25m sample locations (p-values = 0.37).
Table 3. Species Richness at Transect Samples
Transect
(25m)
Species
Richness at
5m
Species
Richness at
10m
Species
Richness at
15m
Species
Richness at
20m
Species
Richness at
25m
No removal 4 6 4 3 4
Previous
Removal
1 6 4 4 3
Recent
Removal
4 1 1 1 3
Although an exact area cleared or number of honeysuckle taken out could not be
realistically measured in the project, a few measurements gave some qualitative data describing
the success of the project. On the last day of the project, the cleared, forested area was measured.

21. In total, the group worked on a piece of the hillside that was 62.6 meters by 40.1 meters, or about
2,500 square meters (Figure 15). This included land that had been previously worked and land
that had never been cleared. A density measurement of honeysuckle in a randomly-selected area
of forest that we had not been able to clear was also taken. In a 3 meter by 3 meter transect, a
total of 40 honeysuckle plants were counted. This was a very dense area, but since density was
not consistent throughout the site, the total number of honeysuckle cleared can not be concluded.
Figure 15: Comparative photographs of our forest site showing without honeysuckle removal (left) and with honeysuckle removal (right).
The results on the prairie were evaluated qualitatively. Before burning, dead, flattened
prairie grasses and invasives were present. After burning, the old grass was gone and woody
plants and/or invasives remained. The group worked to rid the field of these plants; the largest
plants, almost all honeysuckle, and juniper seedlings were cleared. Many autumn olive plants
were still present even after clearing efforts; these plants were hard to see and essentially
everywhere. By the end of the project duration, green shoots covered the prairie (Figure 16).

22. Figure 16: Comparison of prairie before burn (left) and the growth progression after the burn (top right - one week after, bottom left and right - a
few weeks after the burn.
Throughout the course of this project we have recorded our progress and weekly
activities on a internet blog. In each week’s section, we have described our work and
supplemented each page with many pictures. These pictures illustrate our progress, removal
techniques, planting of natives, along with the various wildlife and natural features we
encountered. We also captured key event like the class visit and the prairie burn, and the growth
progression of the prairie following the burn.
The blog can be viewed at the following URL:
https://streaming.wcp.muohio.edu/groups/ecologicalrestoration2014/wiki/26cd7/Indian_Creek_
Nature_Reserve.html

23. V. Discussion and Conclusion
We expected that along the transect that experienced no previous removal there would be
a lower overall species richness in comparison to the two which had experienced different levels
of invasive removal. We thought that the honeysuckle would inhibit the growth of many species
via competition for light and other resources. Our results show that there was no significant
difference in species richness between the transects. However, our sample size was very small
and therefore not representative of the different areas we aimed to assess.
We recommend that future efforts represent different areas with multiple transects to
increase sample size and normality of data so that it is more representative. It may also be useful
to take measurements using a quadrat instead of a line, and including percent cover/abundance of
different species. This would provide more useful information about the potential effects of
invasive species in the area.
Though our findings do not provide strong support for continued invasive removal, other
sources illustrate the importance of invasive species removal on the persistence of native species
and restoring ecosystems (D’Antonio & Meyerson 2002; Tallamy 2009). This practice is
important for maintaining and fostering ecosystems that are stable and diverse. Qualitative data
shown in our results gives an indication to the success of the project. The prairie was
transformed from an expanse filled with invasives to a lush carpet of prairie grass sprouts. The
forest hillside was a cluttered, choked tangle of honeysuckle in the beginning. The area worked
became a clear, open space, ready for native plants. These results were due to the success of the
burn and long, hard hours spent on the hillside. Time will tell if the observations truly correlate
to a healthier habitat, especially considering past and future efforts.
Future research, especially with data collection over a longer time span, could answer
remaining questions. For instance, how will erosion affect the forest hillside, and did the group’s
efforts increase its effects? Will the prairie burn help prevent invasives from growing? Is there a
correlation with invasive density and native biodiversity? Extended data collection could help
answer these and many other questions pertaining to restoring the land in the most effective way
possible.
VI. Reflection
Our group gained a great deal of experience from this project. First, we learned from
other groups. By observing their different techniques, we were able to compare the effectiveness
of our own methods. For instance, we used chainsaws at many other work sites. We became

24. familiar with the tools and were inspired to use them for a day on the Geddes property. At other
sites, we used honeysuckle poppers. These tools were effective in uprooting the honeysuckle;
however, they disrupt a lot of soil. This would not have been appropriate for our forest hillside,
since erosion was a factor. Although they don’t require herbicide application, since roots remain
attached to the bush, the poppers were not very efficient at clearing large areas. By going to other
sites, we were able to determine if our methods were as effective as possible.
We learned how flexible we had to be with our initial plans. We expected that the prairie
burn would have occurred much sooner, but weather conditions delayed it. Also, we thought
planting would have occurred much sooner; our harsh winter and spring delayed plans. Despite
these changes, we still accomplished our goals (albeit in an alternative order).
The project had many highlights. We were astounded at how easily we could see our
progress. In just the first work day we could see that we were making a difference in the area.
Watching the prairie transformation from lifeless, wintered grasses, to barren ash, and finally to a
lush carpet of green was a phenomenal experience. We felt lucky that our client had been able to
arrange a burn, especially since it is such an effective method for prairie care. Finally, our project
site in general was a highlight. Anne Geddes was a joy to work with, and the property on Indian
Creek Nature Reserve was a beautiful location on which to complete our work. We truly loved
interacting with Anne and exploring the natural area.
The project had downfalls as well, though they are definitely outweighed by the
highlights. The most obvious downfall was the poison ivy to which the entire group was
subjected. Early on, the project had a bit of a shaky start; we changed the location of where we
would be working after talking more with our client. Better communication probably could have
prevented this delay, but the project was a success nonetheless. Finally, the biggest downfall was
the short amount of time in which we had to work on the project. Commitments to other classes
and outside work schedules prevented the group from working at the site more than twice a
week. The end of the semester and work time came too fast; each member of the group truly
wished that the project could have extended on for future work and progress observation. These
downfalls were minor and our project was certainly a success.
We have many recommendations for the future. First, in the fall we recommend a foliar
spray of Roundup. At Quail Ridge, owner John Costanzo had applied a foliar spray the previous
autumn to kill honeysuckle and other invasives on his property. In the spring when the class set
to work, the large invasives were dead and could be easily lifted out of the ground and turned
into brush piles. We saw the effectiveness of this method when we went to help on his property.
This could be recommended with reservations for the Geddes land; other native plants would

25. have to be preserved, and the uprooting may cause erosion on land such as the forested hillside.
The benefits and demerits of this method would have to be carefully weighed before action, but
it is nonetheless another plausible idea for honeysuckle removal.
The major demerit of Roundup is that it is, simply put, toxic (Mesnage et al 2014).
Because our project took place on a hillside, the toxins in Roundup would in all probability end
up in Indian Creek after a foliar spray. As this is an ecological restoration class, we need to take
this side effect of Roundup into serious consideration for possible future use. While it may kill
amur honeysuckle, the externalities involved (such as polluting the local water source) may
outweigh its benefits of eradicating an invasive plant. Given more time, we would have liked to
look into other, safer alternatives.
Since burns are an important part of prairie health (Ohio Prairie Association 2013), the
group definitely recommends another burn to take place in the future. In addition, future burns
will continue to combat the return of invasives (Grace et al. 2002). Although the timeline of our
project did not let the group observe long-term effects of the prairie burn, we feel confident that
the burn was beneficial to the habitat.
Finally, we recommend the continuance of honeysuckle removal on the Geddes property.
Moreover, we recommend this site for future work by the participants of the GEO 460 class, with
client approval. The Geddes property has over 200 acres, and there is still much that can be
accomplished in terms of ecological restoration.

26. VII. Annotated Bibliography
Library and Journal References
Bahm, M.A., Barnes, T.G., & Jensen, K.C. (2011). Herbicide and Fire Effects on Smooth
Brome (Bromus inermis) and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) in Invaded Prairie
Remnants. Invasive Plant Science and Management, (4) 189–197.
This paper assesses the effects of herbicide application and prairie burning on two
invasive grasses. It is very useful in determining how successful these management
strategies have been in other systems. This study focuses on invasive grasses, which will
likely respond differently than woody species, which we may be more likely to
encounter. The study also measure the vegetative cover of native and invasive species
following different treatments, which is useful in predicting the response of native
species.
Carlson, A.M. & Gorchov, D.L. (2004). Effects of Herbicide on the Invasive Biennial
Alliaria petiolata (Garlic Mustard) and Initial Responses of Native Plants in a Southwestern
Ohio Forest. Restoration Ecology 12 (4), 559-576.
Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00373.x/full
This article is a report of particular interest; it studies the effects of herbicide on the
common invasive garlic mustard at Hueston Woods State Park, which is in very close
proximity to our client’s property. Therefore, its results could be potentially compared to
ours at the end of our project. The article stresses the importance of looking for long-
term, not short-term, changes after invasive species removal. The experiment was
conducted in a forest of mature age, which may explain why the garlic mustard did not
have a noticeable impact on the species present before and after removal.
D’Antonio, C.D. & Meyerson, L.A. (2002). Exotic Plant Species as
Problems and Solutions in Ecological Restoration: A Synthesis. Restoration Ecology 10 (4),
703–713.
This paper addresses how invasive species influence, and are affected by, disturbance,
succession and restoration in the short term and long term. The authors report on the
outcomes of restoration techniques and elaborate, or critique, the efficacy of the methods
used. Specifically, the authors talk about disturbance as a common restoration technique
and how it can be more effective when paired with other techniques. The authors also

27. provide useful information about removing exotic species and methods of managing
exotic following a disturbance. This information can help guide our restoration efforts
and help us decide potential best management practices for the forest and prairie.
Dyer, James M. (2006). Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America.
Bioscience 56 (4), 341-352.
Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America revisits Deciduous Forests of
Eastern North America, written by E. Lucy Braun, published in 1950. Braun’s article
included a map of virgin eastern deciduous forest pattern. This article includes new maps
of eastern deciduous forest regions using data of contemporary forest plots, and compares
and contrasts the old and new. Key differences in maps are not due to methodological
error, but rather differences in forest structure as a result of intensive land use, fire
suppression, exotic and invasive species, and changes in atmospheric chemistry. This is a
meaningful article for our project because it provides us clear documentation of long term
changes in the eastern deciduous forest structure, correlating with the introduction of
invasive plant species.
Fidelibus, Matthew W, Mac Aller, Robert T.F. (1993). Methods for Plant Sampling.
Biology Department of San Diego State University: Desert Revegetation Project Prepared for
the California Department of Transportation, District 11, 2829 Juan Street, San Diego, CA,
92138. Retrieved at: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/SERG/techniques/mfps.html
This document describes various methods of plant sampling and their pros and cons. It
includes quadrat sampling, relevé, plotless sampling, distance methods, the importance
of photographs, and related equations. We used this article to better understand plant
sampling methods and decide on one that best suited our needs. We ultimately decided on
plotless sampling after careful consideration of this paper.

28. Grace, J. B., Smith, M. D., Grace, S. L., Collins, S.L., & Stohlgren, T. J. (2002).
Interactions Between Fire and Invasive Plants in Temperate Grasslands of North America.
Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire, Ecology, Prevention and
Management. Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of
Invasive Species, 40-65.
Retrieved at:
http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/uploads/files/LiteratureAttachments/181_intera
ctions-between-fire-and-invasive-plants-in-temperate-grasslands.pdf
This article describes the effects that burning can have on invasive species. This article
provides lots of explicit, in-depth information on how fire affects particular invasives
around North America. The research provides possible outcomes of a burn. One outcome,
and the outcome we hope to achieve at least in part, is that native plants that became
resilient to burning over time will survive, while invasives that are not as well adapted
will not be able to survive the burn (Grace et. al. 2002). Alternatively, the disturbances of
burns often provide a window of opportunity for invasives to take over before native
plants can recover (Grace et. al. 2002). The article provides a well-rounded, all-
encompassing perspective of the possible outcomes of burning a habitat. Lastly, the
article discusses possible changes that an invasive species’ presence could have on a
burn, such as suppression or enhancement of the fire (Grace et al. 2002). The article is
beneficial to all areas of North America concerned in both prairie burns and invasive
problems. It addresses many point for us to consider in the prairie burn on our project
site.
Gordon, D.R. (1998). Effects of Invasive, Non-indigenous Plant Species on
Ecosystem Processes: Lessons from Florida. Ecological Applications 8 (4), 975-989.
This review paper illustrates the effects that invasive species have on ecosystem
processes. The author assesses the negative impacts of invasive species to hydrology,
biogeochemistry and other important ecosystem processes in Florida from 31 different
studies. It is useful for our project to understand how invasive species are able to alter
ecosystem processes, the changes that are made, and the impact of these changes on the
native community. This can help to make predictions about our efforts based on our
knowledge of how long the invasives have been established, their land cover relative to
native species, and the typical ecosystem processes of forests and prairie upon which
native species depend.

29. Hansen, Twyla. (2010, September). Preserve Prairies: They’re Not Making it Anymore.
Prairie Fire. Prairie Fire Enterprises.
This article was a very interesting and informative read. It stresses not only natural and
scientific aspects that are involved in prairie conservation, but also cultural, historical,
and aesthetic reasons to preserve/restore/rebuild prairies. The journal article mentions
ongoing projects, such as research indexes and current rebuilding projects. Its multi-
faceted address of the importance of prairies gives a wide view of their importance. It
gave us a broader perspective on the possible benefits of our restoration project and what
it could mean to the ecosystem and community.
Hardin, JW, Leopold, DJ, White, FM. (2001). Hardin and Harlow’s Textbook of
Dendrology, Ninth Edition. McGraw Hill.
This text is a comprehensive list of temperate trees, their habitat, range, taxonomy, and
characteristics. This book describes hundreds of trees native to North America and its
forests. It will be an important reference when identifying trees in Anne Geddes’ forest,
and it gives us a nice overview of how the top two layers of the forest are characterized.
Henkin, M.A., Medley, K.E., & Abbitt, R.J. (2013). Invasion Dynamics Of Nonnative Amur
Honeysuckle Over 18 Years In A Southwestern Ohio Forest. American Midland Naturalist
170 (2), 335-347.
This article is of particular importance, as it discusses the invasive Amur honeysuckle
and its effects in Oxford. The article was even written at Miami University. It introduces
the background of amur honeysuckle and where it came from, while mentioning the
negative impacts it has on native species (namely, pushing natives out) (Henkin et. al
2013). The article is significant in that it uses data over a span of years and therefore is
able to compare a habitat’s ability to withstand amur honeysuckle invasion. Most
importantly, the report discusses conservation application to accompany their data, urging
conservationists to factor in stability in an ecosystem (Henkin et. al. 2013). Maintaining
stability will be a central idea to our work at Indian Creek Nature Reserve.

30. Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., de Vendomois, JN., Seralini, JE. (2014). Major Pesticides are
More Toxic to Human Cells than Their Declared Active Principles. Biomed Research
International. 1-8.
This article studied nine major pesticides used around the world. The research discovered that the
active principles declared in the pesticides in question were not necessarily the most important
when it came to toxicity; moreover, the combinations of the ingredients (those listed as inert)
mixed with the active ingredients were showed to be more troubling. The results showed that the
combinations of ingredients in the products in question were up to one thousand times more toxic
than their active ingredient alone. Roundup was among the most toxic tested.
Reich, P.B., Frelich, L. Volume 2, The Earth system: biological and ecological dimensions
of global environmental change. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (0-471-
97796-9), 565-569.
This is an article used for the globalcarbonproject.org, and addresses issues such as
climatic change and issues of a human dominated world. One of these issues so happens
to be the destruction and fragmentation of forests, which the authors are particularly
concerned about as forests provide necessary ecological functions on a global scale. This
article addresses the negative effects of invasive species on habitat functionality, ties
fragmentation to invasions, and describes how this can ultimately lead to a less
productive forest. As we are focusing on eradicating invasives from the forested part of
Anne Geddes’ land, this article is particularly meaningful to us. It grapples with the idea
that local invasions on local areas of land can have far reaching consequences on a global
scale, and makes our project that much more significant.
Schramm, P. (1990). Prairie Restoration: A Twenty-Five Year Perspective on Management
and Establishment. Proceedings of the twelfth North American Prairie Conference, 169-178.
This paper offers long-term insight into effective prairie management strategies. It also
gives useful and easily replicable recommendations for prairie restoration.
Tallamy, D. (2009). Bringing Nature Home: How You Can Sustain Wildlife with Native
Plants. China: Timber Press.
Bringing Nature Home has a plethora of information regarding the importance of plant
diversity in a given ecosystem and how depletion of a species can affect the system as a
whole. The “jenga” analogy Tallamy uses is especially pertinent to our project, as our

31. focus is on invasives, which take over certain areas that would be filled with natives
without providing adequate services to the given niche. This book also describes the
positive results of invasive removal, which we hope to achieve by the end of our project.
Vasseur, L. (2012). Restoration of Deciduous Forests. Nature Education Knowledge, 3 (12),
1. Retrieved February 19, 2014 from
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/restoration-of-deciduous-forests-
96642239
This article describes methods and results of both passive and active land restoration of
deciduous forests. It gives a brief description and history of deciduous forests and how
they have changed at the hands of Europeans. Barriers to restoration and broader
considerations are considered in terms of confounding effects such as pollution and
climate change. Because our goal is to actively restore a piece of deciduous forest, this
article is an inherently useful source of information.
Verstraeton, G, Baeten, L, den Broeck, T, Frenne, P, Demey, A, Tack, W, Muys, B,
Verheyen, K, & Fraser, L. (2013). Temporal changes in forest plant communities at
different site types. Applied Vegetation Science, 16(2):237-247.
The authors of this article chronicle the importance of the herb layer in forests. During
their study they (re) inventoried 43 vegetation sites in forests in both acid and neutral soil
and determined differences in species abundance and frequency using multivariate
analysis and their response to temporal change. This article was mainly used to illuminate
the significance of the herb layer in the deciduous forest.
Wilson, M.V., Ingersoll, C.A., Wilson, M.G. & Clark, D.L. (2004). Why Pest Plant Control
and Native Plant Establishment Failed: A Restoration Autopsy. Natural Areas Journal, 24
(1), 23-31.
The authors analyze the failures associate with prairie restoration. The focus is on two
strategies: pest plant control and native plant establishment. Since one of our goals with
the prairie restoration is to aid in the establishment of native species, it is important to
understand what techniques may be less successful to avoid or improve upon these
methods.

32. Web Sources
Audubon Ohio. (2010). Ohio’s Prairies: Native Grasslands. Audubon Adventures Ohio
Series. Ed. Tom Hissong. : Columbus. February 20, 2014 from
http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/42/documents/AA%20grasslands%202%20fixed2.pdf
This is a wonderful online source to show the importance of Ohio’s prairies to children.
This online article and activity sheet shows the historical and ecological significance of
prairies. It discusses the types of life that depend on prairies, such as birds, insects, and
mammals. It even includes the importance of fires for prairies and their role in
eradicating native species. This web document educates and engages children while
teaching them the importance of prairies.
Conservation Commission of Missouri. (2014). Bush Honeysuckle Control. Missouri
Department of Conservation. Retrieved March 6, 2014 from http://mdc.mo.gov/your-
property/problem-plants-and-animals/invasive-plants/bush-honeysuckles-control
This online page gives an overview of both the Amur and Morrow’s honeysuckle. The
page mentions its history and species information. Most relevant to our project is the
information the page provides on honeysuckle removal. It lists which kinds of herbicides
do not work, which kinds do work, and the best ways to apply them.
Friends of the Mississippi River. (2013). Help Remove Invasive Species: Garlic Mustard.
Retrieved February 24, 2014 from
http://www.fmr.org/volunteer_basics/invasive_species/garlic_mustard
This particular article gives details on the best way to remove garlic mustard, a common
invasive across the United States. The web page provides photo identification of
the plant.The page also explains why they use the method of hand-picking; they continue
by describing how to dispose of the garlic mustard that is picked so that the species does
not remain in the worked area or spread to new areas. These methods will then be
implemented in our work.
Miller, J. H. (2003). General Principles for Controlling Nonnative Invasive Plants. Invasive
Plants of the Eastern U.S. USDA Forest Service: Forest Health Technology Enterprise
Team, . Retrieved. February 23 2014 from
https://dnr.state.il.us/Stewardship/cd/srs/control.html
The article on this webpage is very helpful. It provides a number of different techniques

33. employed to eradicate invasive species. It describes which methods will work on which
types of plants, how they are used, and their benefits and demerits. The web article also
includes photographs depicting the methods. Finally, it describes the best time of year to
apply which kinds of herbicides. Miller’s article will help us decide which herbicides to
use and when at Indian Creek Nature Reserve.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (1994). The Benefits of Prescribed Burning
on Private Land. Retrieved February 18, 2014 from
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/privatelandhabitat/benefits_prescribed_bu
rning.pdf
Many aspects of land burning are discussed in this online pamphlet. It first mentions the
basics of a controlled fire (compared to a wildfire) and its historical relevance. The text
then describes the benefits of a controlled fire and the many different types of habitats
that need fire to survive. For instance, it maintains habitats such as prairies from being
taken over by larger species or changed. Finally, it gives a step-by-step instructions list
that can be used by anyone who wishes to burn on his or her property. This part of the
article would be a particularly good resource to recommend to anyone who becomes
inspired by our project.
Ohio Division of Wildlife. (n.d.). Prairie Grassland Habitat Management. Retrieved
February 18, 2014 from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/9/pdf/pub387.pdf
This online article starts by describing the history of prairie grasslands in Ohio. It has a
considerable discussion about warm season grasses and cool season grasses, the latter
which is nonnative. It provides very specific descriptions of how to establish a prairie,
including planting and growing instructions. Lastly, it gives information on individual,
common prairie grass species with photographs. A portion of our background knowledge
for our project came from this source.
Ohio Prairie Association. (2013, November 27). Ohio Prairie Association. Retrieved
February 18, 2014 from http://www.ohioprairie.org/index.html
This website has an extensive question/answer document that covers the fundamentals of
what a prairie is, their history in Ohio, and multiple locations within the state. Their
information also covers what kind of life can be found in an Ohio prairie. This site will be
of particular use in identifying native species and understanding the basics of prairie
habitats. This source enriched our background information on the project site.

34. Image Citation (in order of appearance)
1. Google Maps. (2014). [Indian Creek Nature Reserve, Oxford, Ohio] [Street map].
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4492306,-84.7788943,1516m/data=!3m1!1e3
2. Natura, Heidi. Diagram. Nature Education, 1995 Nature Conservation Research Institute.
2012.
http://www.dupageco.org/assets/0/14/382/442/463/2748/2837/2089817d-c342-49ce-85aa-
d86ce2470975.png
3. Ohio Prairie Association, n.d. Prairie Regions of Ohio. Map.
http://www.ohioprairie.org/prairie_regions_of_ohio.html
4. Lasur, Tom. Photograph. Eastern Deciduous Forest, Wildscreen. 2013.
http://www.arkive.org/eco-regions/eastern-deciduous-forest/
5. S-cool Youth Marketing Limited. Diagram. Types of Succesion.
http://www.arkive.org/eco-regions/eastern-deciduous-forest/
6. Weather Underground 2013. Heapcloud. Photograph.
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/h/Heapcloud/73-800.jpg
7. Boone County Arboretum 2011. Photograph..
http://www.bcarboretum.org/invasiveplants.aspx
8. Miller, J. Directed foliar sprays with a backpack sprayer. Photograph. Invasive Plants of the
Eastern U.S. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 2003. Web. 25
February 2014. https://dnr.state.il.us/Stewardship/cd/srs/control.html
9. Miller, J. Basal sprays applied by spray gun and straight-stream nozzle to low stem.
Photograph. Invasive Plants of the Eastern U.S. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology
Enterprise Team, 2003. Web. 25 February 2014.
https://dnr.state.il.us/Stewardship/cd/srs/control.html
10. Lopez, A. (2014, May 12). Ecological restoration project at Indian Creek Nature Reserve,
Oxford, Ohio.
11. Brake, M. (2014). Photographs of removal methods.