Page 8

The presence values in Table 1 show the likelihood of a 
given species being present in any given prairie stand 
(by prairie type) anywhere in the prairie province of 
Wisconsin (Fig. 1). In other words, a value of 50 in the 
dry prairie category means that that species was found 
in 50% of the dry prairie stands visited. Presence values 
within each of the five prairie types, wet to dry, plus the 
sand barren community (a very sandy, dry, and sterile 
"prairie" or grassland type described by Curtis) are report- 
ed. Sand barren is included for comparative purposes. 
The data in Table 1 are very useful for determining a 
species "habitat" preference. However, they have major 
limitations. 
First, the sample sizes used in the data collection did 
not adequately survey rarer species. Thus, caution should 
be used when drawing conclusions about the habitat 
preference of any species that did not exceed 10% _fre_-. 
_quenfy-in.t ea.st.one prairie.type 
Second, the data do not inform the reader as to the 
importance or dominance of a species within stands of 
a prairie type. For information on within-stand impor- 
tance at sites where the species was present, use Table 2. 
Lastly, Table I does not take into account the fact that 
many prairie species are not found naturally across the 
entire prairie province of the state. For example, Aster 
Pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida) (top) and Rattlesnake  oblongifolius
(Aromatic aster) is found only in the western 
master (Eryngium yuccifolium) (bottom), species of limited  two thirds of
the state; Eryngium yuccifolium (Rattle- 
range in Wisconsin. All natural populations are within approx-  snake master)
and Echinacea pallida (Pale purple 
imaely 50 mites of le Iulinois- vvisconsin state line. 
0 
DESCRIPTIONS AND 
LIMITATIONS OF TABLES 
Table 1 presents the relative "habitat" preference of each 
species for the different prairie types, with the types 
compared side-by-side. Table 2 presents the dominance 
or importance of each species within each prairie type, 
with the types compared side-by-side. In both Tables 1 
and 2, the species are listed in alphabetic order. 
Tables 3 through 6, respectively, present the species 
found in dry, dry-mesic, mesic, and wet-mesic prairie 
stands. The species are ranked in order of their impor- 
tance within the type. 
Synonyms of recent scientific name changes are 
included in Tables 1 and 2, but not Tables 3 through 6. 
There is also a listing of recent taxonomic changes in 
Appendix A. 
Species of limited range within the prairie province of 
Wisconsin (see Figure 1) are noted as such in all tables. 
Range-limited species are also listed in Appendix B along 
with a brief description as to what part of the prairie 
province they are found. 
TABLE 1: Species Presence Within 
Prairie Types