Small Grants Program

PBR funds individuals with grants up to $1000 in our competitive annual Small Grants Program. We support the study of any species in U.S. prairies and savannas. Over ten years PBR has funded 117 grants totaling $111,436 to researchers in 26 states. More than half of these grants supported graduate students. What makes this activity so urgent is that these habitats and the species that live there are vanishing. We are gathering information that may slow this terrible erosion of our natural heritage, while fostering the development of these researchers, thereby sustaining our cultural heritage. We can be only as successful in this effort as we are in raising the money that we give away.

Please consider helping this important work continue. How Might You Help?

History Overview Researcher Reports Researcher Feedback For Prospective Applicants Process & Values

Historical Summary of Small Grants Program

NOTE: Grants awarded as geographically restricted are limited by the donor to research in a particular state.

YEAR

GrantYear

YEAR

PERSON

STATE

RESTRICTED
TO STATE

DOLLARS

TOPIC


YEAR: 2002 (2 records)
2002	Kari Jacobson	MN	False	$962 962	Control of invasive smooth brome grass Control of invasive smooth brome grass
2002	John Tooker	IL	False	$895 895	Effects of fire on insects specializing in Silphium spp. Effects of fire on insects specializing in <i>Silphium</i> spp.
		Total:		$1,857
YEAR: 2003 (2 records)
2003	Jeffrey Gruber	WI	False	$1,000 1000	Nest inquilines of Aphaenogaster ants on bluff prairies Nest inquilines of <i>Aphaenogaster</i> ants on bluff prairies
2003	Keith Summerville	IA	False	$775 775	Microlepidoptera survey in savanna remnants Microlepidoptera survey in savanna remnants
		Total:		$1,775
YEAR: 2004 (8 records)
2004	Richard Bautz	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Inventory and assessment of Franklin's ground squirrel Inventory and assessment of Franklin's ground squirrel
2004	Richard Clinebell	MO	False	$1,000 1000	Prairie pollinator survey Prairie pollinator survey
2004	Terry Harrison	IL	False	$972 972	Microlepidoptera survey of hill prairies Microlepidoptera survey of hill prairies
2004	Chiara Hemsley	IA	False	$500 500	Inventory of solitary bees on tallgrass prairie remnants Inventory of solitary bees on tallgrass prairie remnants
2004	Zachary Hillman	CO	False	$669 669	Spider survey of Comanche National Grasslands Spider survey of Comanche National Grasslands
2004	Tracey Johnson	KS	False	$912 912	Effects on plants and birds of grazing tallgrass prairie Effects on plants and birds of grazing tallgrass prairie
2004	Joshua Kapfer	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Effects of prairie management on bull snakes Effects of prairie management on bull snakes
2004	Ursula Petersen	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Soil chemistry relating to eastern prairie fringed orchid Soil chemistry relating to eastern prairie fringed orchid
		Total:		$7,053
YEAR: 2005 (10 records)
2005	Richard Bautz	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Inventory and assessment of Franklin's ground squirrel Inventory and assessment of Franklin's ground squirrel
2005	Andrea Blong	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Use of native cover crops in prairie restoration Use of native cover crops in prairie restoration
2005	Nicolette Cagle	NC	False	$1,000 1000	Effects of habitat fragmentation on prairie snakes in IL Effects of habitat fragmentation on prairie snakes in IL
2005	Kevin Grady	AZ	False	$1,000 1000	Effects of tallgrass prairie restoration on ground beetles in IL Effects of tallgrass prairie restoration on ground beetles in IL
2005	Hank Guarisco	KS	False	$1,000 1000	Spider survey of Comanche National Grasslands Spider survey of Comanche National Grasslands
2005	Terry Harrison	IL	False	$878 878	Microlepidoptera survey of hill prairies Microlepidoptera survey of hill prairies
2005	Sarah Kraszewski	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Flora of dry lime prairies 50 years after earlier survey Flora of dry lime prairies 50 years after earlier survey
2005	Kyle Kwaiser	IA	True	$997 997	Survey of native bees in hill prairies Survey of native bees in hill prairies
2005	Scott Meiners	IL	False	$999 999	Effect of seed source population size on restoration success Effect of seed source population size on restoration success
2005	Adam Wallner	IL	False	$995 995	Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie health Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie health
		Total:		$9,869
YEAR: 2006 (12 records)
2006	Rebecca Andres	ND	False	$500 500	Effects of tallgrass prairie management on native bees Effects of tallgrass prairie management on native bees
2006	Mary Damm	IN	False	$1,000 1000	Micorrhizal fungi in tallgrass prairie in IA Micorrhizal fungi in tallgrass prairie in IA
2006	Daniel Fogell	NE	False	$1,000 1000	Disturbance effects on massasauga rattlesnakes Disturbance effects on massasauga rattlesnakes
2006	Stephen Hendrix	IA	True	$1,003 1003	Ongoing study of native bees Ongoing study of native bees
2006	Emily Kluger	IL	False	$965 965	Study of prairie endemic weevil Haplorhynchites aeneus Study of prairie endemic weevil <i>Haplorhynchites aeneus</i>
2006	Seth Magle	CO	False	$500 500	Effect of urbanization on black-tailed prairie dog Effect of urbanization on black-tailed prairie dog
2006	Jessica Orlofske	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie integrity Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie integrity
2006	Adam Rollins	AR	False	$500 500	Study of prairie myxomycetes (slime molds) Study of prairie <i>myxomycetes</i> (slime molds)
2006	Neil Sawyer	WI	True	$900 900	Pollen limitation in two species of Asclepias Pollen limitation in two species of Asclepias
2006	Keith Summerville	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Restoration of prairie insect diversity in agricultural landscapes Restoration of prairie insect diversity in agricultural landscapes
2006	Amy Wolf	WI	False	$1,000 1000	Survey of native bees in prairie remnants Survey of native bees in prairie remnants
2006	Kathryn Yurkonis	IA	False	$1,000 1000	Regulating invasibility in prairie restorations Regulating invasibility in prairie restorations
		Total:		$10,368
YEAR: 2007 (12 records)
2007	Kate Bradley	MI	False	$1,000 1000	Study of invasive weevil infesting Threatened Hill's thistle in WI Study of invasive weevil infesting Threatened Hill's thistle in WI
2007	Johanna Foster	IA	True	$900 900	Flora and fauna survey of college-owned prairie Flora and fauna survey of college-owned prairie
2007	Hank Guarisco	KS	False	$1,000 1000	Spider survey of Cimarron National Grasslands Spider survey of Cimarron National Grasslands
2007	Mike Healy	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Control of invasive reed canary grass in wet prairie Control of invasive reed canary grass in wet prairie
2007	Stephen Hendrix	IA	False	$1,000 1000	Use of artificial nests by mason bees in prairie remnants Use of artificial nests by mason bees in prairie remnants
2007	John Barone & JoVonn Hill	GA/MS	False	$450 450	Restoration of native ant communities Restoration of native ant communities
2007	Jennifer Hopwood	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Effects of isolation and time on pollinators in restorations Effects of isolation and time on pollinators in restorations
2007	Tracey Johnson	OR	False	$950 950	Effects of livestock grazing on nesting birds Effects of livestock grazing on nesting birds
2007	Jessica Orlofske	IA	False	$1,000 1000	Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie integrity Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie integrity
2007	Nicholas Schmidt	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Soybean aphid control in crops; natural enemies in prairies Soybean aphid control in crops; natural enemies in prairies
2007	Tim Vargo	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Population monitoring of Threatened Butler's garter snake Population monitoring of Threatened Butler's garter snake
2007	Adam Wallner	IL	False	$950 950	Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie health Development of an insect index to tallgrass prairie health
		Total:		$11,250
YEAR: 2008 (15 records)
2008	Moni Berg-Binder	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Seed dispersal by ants of invasive leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula Seed dispersal by ants of invasive leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula
2008	Diane Byers	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Effects of habitat fragmentation on reproduction of Lobelia spicata Effects of habitat fragmentation on reproduction of <i>Lobelia spicata</i>
2008	Matthew Cross	MI	False	$1,000 1000	Response of Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes to prescribed burns Response of Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnakes to prescribed burns
2008	Rebecca Curland	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Mycorrhizal fungi in a prairie invaded by leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula Mycorrhizal fungi in a prairie invaded by leafy spurge, <i>Euphorbia esula</i>
2008	Rachel Gross	IL	True	$980 980	Effect of prescribed fires on belowground process in tallgrass prairie Effect of prescribed fires on belowground process in tallgrass prairie
2008	Emily Henry	TX	False	$960 960	Microhabitat selection of Texas horned lizard in northern Texas Microhabitat selection of Texas horned lizard in northern Texas
2008	Sandra James-Yi	IL	False	$925 925	Study of water mites of the Northeastern Morainal Prairie of Illinois Study of water mites of the Northeastern Morainal Prairie of Illinois
2008	Kyra Krakos	MO	False	$1,000 1000	Pollination biology of Oenothera species in Oklahoma prairies Pollination biology of <i>Oenothera</i> species in Oklahoma prairies
2008	Elizabeth Middleton	IN	False	$960 960	Effects of native prairie soil addition to restorations on farmed land Effects of native prairie soil addition to restorations on farmed land
2008	Nicole Miller	MO	True	$1,000 1000	Plant-pollinator interactions in prairie and glade ecosystems Plant-pollinator interactions in prairie and glade ecosystems
2008	Wayne Ohnesorg	IA	True	$1,050 1050	Iowa survey for a new species of aphid recently found in central Iowa Iowa survey for a new species of aphid recently found in central Iowa
2008	Wendy Phillips	OR	False	$1,000 1000	Role of mycorrhizal fungi in preservation of native prairies Role of mycorrhizal fungi in preservation of native prairies
2008	Matthew Richardson	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Ploidal diversity of host plants influences on insect community Ploidal diversity of host plants influences on insect community
2008	James Stroh	IA	True	$1,050 1050	Small mammal survey in northern loess hills of western Iowa Small mammal survey in northern loess hills of western Iowa
2008	Rebecca Tonietto	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Effects of urban fragmentation on pollination in Illinois prairies Effects of urban fragmentation on pollination in Illinois prairies
		Total:		$14,925
YEAR: 2009 (21 records)
2009	Andrew Berger	IL	True	$882 882	Terrestrial habitat use & movement of juvenile yellow mud turtles Terrestrial habitat use & movement of juvenile yellow mud turtles
2009	Susan Chamberlain	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Effects of different grazing regimes on warm season grass varieties Effects of different grazing regimes on warm season grass varieties
2009	Katherine Chi	IL	True	$980 980	Reproductive ecology & population genetics of Besseya bullii Reproductive ecology & population genetics of <i>Besseya bullii</i>
2009	Stacy Duckett	TX	False	$1,000 1000	Monitoring a translocated population of black-tailed prairie dogs Monitoring a translocated population of black-tailed prairie dogs
2009	Steve Erickson	WA	False	$1,000 1000	Germination requirements of seed of Carex tumulicola Germination requirements of seed of <i>Carex tumulicola</i>
2009	J. Whitman-Zai & M. Francis	CO	False	$1,000 1000	Field study of prairie funnel web spiders, Agelenopsis spp. Field study of prairie funnel web spiders, <i>Agelenopsis</i> spp.
2009	Thor Hanson	WA	False	$1,000 1000	A survey of bees in prairie remnants of the San Juan Archipelago A survey of bees in prairie remnants of the San Juan Archipelago
2009	Stephen Hendrix	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Use of native and introduced plants by cavity-nesting bees Use of native and introduced plants by cavity-nesting bees
2009	Erica Henry	WA	False	$1,000 1000	Characterizing the habitat requirements of a skipper, Polites mardon Characterizing the habitat requirements of a skipper, <i>Polites mardon</i>
2009	C.L. Hall & D.R. Howard	ID	False	$1,000 1000	Disturbance ecology of Nicrophorus americanus in Oklahoma Disturbance ecology of <i>Nicrophorus americanus</i> in Oklahoma
2009	Kathleen Kieler	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Analysis of hymenoptera sampled from a prairie/savanna remnant Analysis of hymenoptera sampled from a prairie/savanna remnant
2009	Raffica J. La Rosa	MI	True	$1,000 1000	Natural selection by pollinators on floral traits in three milkweeds Natural selection by pollinators on floral traits in three milkweeds
2009	D.J. Martin & Tom Mathies	CO	False	$982 982	Habitat correlates & occupancy rates, herptiles, shortgrass prairie Habitat correlates & occupancy rates, herptiles, shortgrass prairie
2009	Russell Minton	LA	False	$750 750	Land snails: documenting Louisiana's prairie & bottomland fauna Land snails: documenting Louisiana's prairie & bottomland fauna
2009	William Peterman	IN	False	$1,000 1000	Crawfish frog populations & amphibians on reclaimed surface mines Crawfish frog populations & amphibians on reclaimed surface mines
2009	Steven Roels	KS	False	$1,000 1000	Herbivory & reproduction of Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii) Herbivory & reproduction of Mead's milkweed (<i>Asclepias meadii</i>)
2009	Robert Stanton	IL	True	$900 900	Plant host associations and movement of two prairie cicadas Plant host associations and movement of two prairie cicadas
2009	Irma Tapia	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Genetic diversity & connectivity in white-tailed jackrabbits in Iowa Genetic diversity & connectivity in white-tailed jackrabbits in Iowa
2009	Robin Verble	AR	False	$1,000 1000	Inventory of ants in Arkansas prairies, especially relating to fire Inventory of ants in Arkansas prairies, especially relating to fire
2009	Jim Wiker	IL	True	$1,000 1000	Lepidoptera survey on hill prairies & glades of Mississippi River bluffs Lepidoptera survey on hill prairies & glades of Mississippi River bluffs
2009	Eric Wood	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Importance of savanna to butterfly communities Importance of savanna to butterfly communities
		Total:		$20,494
YEAR: 2010 (18 records)
2010	Moni Berg-Binder	IL	False	$988 988	Are Formica ant mounds favorable microhabitats for leafy spurge? Are Formica ant mounds favorable microhabitats for leafy spurge?
2010	Marguerite Brandenburg	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Reproductive ecology of white-tailed jackrabbit in central Iowa Reproductive ecology of white-tailed jackrabbit in central Iowa
2010	Scott Chamberlain	TX	False	$896 896	Pollinator communities of crop & wild sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) Pollinator communities of crop & wild sunflowers (<i>Helianthus annuus</i>)
2010	Peter Christensen	ND	False	$1,000 1000	Prairie pothole wetland invertebrate community structure in ND Prairie pothole wetland invertebrate community structure in ND
2010	Adam Clause	CA	False	$900 900	Study of federally "Threatened" ground beetle, Elaphrus viridis, in CA Study of federally "Threatened" ground beetle, Elaphrus viridis, in CA
2010	Jennifer Duggan	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Movement of Franklin's ground squirrel in prairie & ag. land in Illinois Movement of Franklin's ground squirrel in prairie & ag. land in Illinois
2010	William Heyborne	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Expansion of current research on land snails of Iowa's Loess Hills Expansion of current research on land snails of Iowa's Loess Hills
2010	Steve Hummel	IA	False	$850 850	Survey of dragonflies and damselflies in South Dakota Survey of dragonflies and damselflies in South Dakota
2010	Cara Joos	MO	False	$1,000 1000	Fitness and habitat selection of Bell's vireo in central Missouri Fitness and habitat selection of Bell's vireo in central Missouri
2010	Kaylan Kemink	MO	False	$923 923	Historical and field study of greater prairie-chicken in Missouri Historical and field study of greater prairie-chicken in Missouri
2010	Frank Krell	CO	False	$975 975	Expansion of current study of bison dung beetle fauna in Colorado Expansion of current study of bison dung beetle fauna in Colorado
2010	Kenneth McCravy	IL	True	$1,000 1000	Native bees of west-central Illinois: diversity & survey methodology Native bees of west-central Illinois: diversity & survey methodology
2010	L. Brian Patrick	SD	False	$748 748	Spider and beetle diversity in pristine prairie vs. CRP planted prairie Spider and beetle diversity in pristine prairie vs. CRP planted prairie
2010	Jennifer Ramirez	NM	False	$978 978	Black-tailed prairie dog: resurvey & remote sensing methodology Black-tailed prairie dog: resurvey & remote sensing methodology
2010	Ryan Stephens	WI	True	$1,000 1000	Small mammal assemblages and habitat associations in WI prairies Small mammal assemblages and habitat associations in WI prairies
2010	Rebecca Tonietto	IL	False	$1,000 1000	Effects of prairie restoration on bee-pollination ecosystem services Effects of prairie restoration on bee-pollination ecosystem services
2010	Joshua Wallace	WA	False	$1,000 1000	Various cover board styles in test of reptile sampling technique Various cover board styles in test of reptile sampling technique
2010	Ted Wilson	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Insect collection & cataloging at the Sioux City Prairie, in Iowa Insect collection & cataloging at the Sioux City Prairie, in Iowa
		Total:		$17,258
YEAR: 2011 (17 records)
2011	Peter Eyheralde	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Seed dispersal by bison in tallgrass prairie Seed dispersal by bison in tallgrass prairie
2011	Johanna Foster	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Bison wallow effects on beetle communities Bison wallow effects on beetle communities
2011	Kent Fothergill	MO	False	$992 992	Carabidae of Missouri sand prairies Carabidae of Missouri sand prairies
2011	Eric Gangloff	CO	False	$1,000 1000	Project Thamnophis Project Thamnophis
2011	Lauren Hart	MO	False	$1,000 1000	Comparison of lady beetle diversity and community composition in agricultural fields, native tallgrass prairies and restored tallgrass prairies Comparison of lady beetle diversity and community composition in agricultural fields, native tallgrass prairies and restored tallgrass prairies
2011	Stephen Hendrix	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Are wild bee communities declining? Are wild bee communities declining?
2011	Scott King	MN	True	$1,000 1000	Study of the dragonfly Sympetrum madidum Hagen in northwestern Minnesota Study of the dragonfly <i>Sympetrum madidum</i> Hagen in northwestern Minnesota
2011	Jennifer Palladini	MT	False	$1,000 1000	Influence of herbicides on native bees Influence of herbicides on native bees
2011	John Placyk	TX	False	$1,000 1000	Natural history of a blackland prairie snake Natural history of a blackland prairie snake
2011	Neil Bernstein & Thomas Rosburg	IA	True	$1,000 1000	Sand dune succession following removal of pine planting: impacts on microclimates, habitat succession, and ornate box turtles Sand dune succession following removal of pine planting: impacts on microclimates, habitat succession, and ornate box turtles
2011	Allison Sacerdote	IL	True	$910 910	Assessment of smooth green snake habitat use and movements Assessment of smooth green snake habitat use and movements
2011	Paul Skrade	IA	False	$1,000 1000	Migration and wintering of mountain plovers Migration and wintering of mountain plovers
2011	Robert Stanton	NE	False	$1,000 1000	Plant host associations, recolonization ability, and effects of anthropogenic background noise on the cicada, Tibicen dorsatus, in tallgrass prairies Plant host associations, recolonization ability, and effects of anthropogenic background noise on the cicada, <i>Tibicen dorsatus</i>, in tallgrass prairies
2011	Keith Summerville	IA	True	$685 685	Use of grazing as a management tool to increase butterfly diversity Use of grazing as a management tool to increase butterfly diversity
2011	Kaitlin Uppstrom	OH	False	$1,000 1000	Biodiversity of ants and mites in prairies Biodiversity of ants and mites in prairies
2011	Bill Welch	KS	False	$1,000 1000	Herpetefauna survey of the WSU field station Herpetefauna survey of the WSU field station
2011	Jeremy White	NE	False	$1,000 1000	Distribution of the plains pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) in the Loess Hills Distribution of the plains pocket mouse (<i>Perognathus flavescens</i>) in the Loess Hills
		Total:		$16,587

Distribution of Grants

BY RESEARCH SUBJECT

SUBJECT

GRANTS

DOLLARS


Insects	54	$51,415 51415
Plants	15	$14,757 14757
Reptiles	12	$11,752 11752
Mammals	11	$10,528 10528
Spiders	4	$3,669 3669
Birds	3	$2,923 2923
Mycorrhizal Fungi	3	$3,000 3000
Grazing & Birds	2	$1,862 1862
Reptiles & Amphibians	2	$1,982 1982
Snails	2	$1,750 1750
Soil Processes	2	$1,940 1940
Amphibians	1	$1,000 1000
Ants & Mites	1	$1,000 1000
Grazing & Grasses	1	$1,000 1000
Grazing & Insects	1	$685 685
Mites	1	$925 925
Slime Molds	1	$500 500
Spiders & Beetles	1	$748 748

Total:

117

$111,436

BY STATE

Geographically Unrestricted Funds (click on header to sort)

STATE

GRANTS

DOLLARS


AR	2	$1,500 1500
AZ	1	$1,000 1000
CA	1	$900 900
CO	6	$5,126 5126
GA/MS	1	$450 450
IA	7	$6,125 6125
ID	1	$1,000 1000
IL	15	$14,567 14567
IN	3	$2,960 2960
KS	5	$4,912 4912
LA	1	$750 750
MI	2	$2,000 2000
MN	1	$962 962
MO	6	$5,915 5915
MT	1	$1,000 1000
NC	1	$1,000 1000
ND	2	$1,500 1500
NE	3	$3,000 3000
NM	1	$978 978
OH	1	$1,000 1000
OR	2	$1,950 1950
SD	1	$748 748
TX	4	$3,856 3856
WA	4	$4,000 4000
WI	2	$2,000 2000

Total:

$69,199

Geographically Restricted Funds (click on header to sort)

STATE

GRANTS

DOLLARS


IA	20	$19,685 19685
IL	7	$6,652 6652
MI	1	$1,000 1000
MN	1	$1,000 1000
MO	1	$1,000 1000
WI	13	$12,900 12900

Total:

$42,237

Select an author/researcher for a list of papers produced as a result of our Small Grants Program. Click on the report title to read the report.

Rebecca Andres - Insects
Richard Bautz - Mammals
Moni Berg-Binder - Plants
Andrew Berger - Reptiles
Andrea Blong - Plants
Kate Bradley - Insects
Marguerite Brandenburg - Mammals
Diane Byers - Plants
Nicolette Cagle - Reptiles
Scott Chamberlain - Insects
Susan Chamberlain - Plants
Katherine Chi - Plants
Peter Christensen - Insects
Adam Clause - Insects
Richard Clinebell - Insects
Matthew Cross - Reptiles
Rebecca Curland - Fungi
Mary Damm - Fungi
Stacy Duckett - Mammals
Jennifer Duggan - Mammals
Steve Erickson - Plants
Peter Eyheralde - Plants
Daniel Fogell - Reptiles
Johanna Foster - Insects
Kent Fothergill - Insects
J. Whitman-Zai & M. Francis - Spiders
Eric Gangloff - Reptiles
Kevin Grady - Insects
Rachel Gross - Soil
Jeffrey Gruber - Insects
Hank Guarisco - Spiders
Thor Hanson - Insects
Terry Harrison - Insects
Lauren Hart - Insects
Mike Healy - Plants
Chiara Hemsley - Insects
Stephen Hendrix - Insects
Emily Henry - Reptiles
Erica Henry - Insects
William Heyborne - Snails
John Barone & JoVonn Hill - Insects
Zachary Hillman - Spiders
Jennifer Hopwood - Insects
C.L. Hall & D.R. Howard - Insects
Steve Hummel - Insects
Kari Jacobson - Plants
Sandra James-Yi - Mites
Tracey Johnson - Birds
Cara Joos - Birds
Joshua Kapfer - Reptiles
Kaylan Kemink - Birds
Kathleen Kieler - Insects
Scott King - Insects
Emily Kluger - Insects
Kyra Krakos - Plants
Sarah Kraszewski - Plants
Frank Krell - Insects
Kyle Kwaiser - Insects
Raffica J. La Rosa - Plants
Seth Magle - Mammals
Kenneth McCravy - Insects
Scott Meiners - Plants
Elizabeth Middleton - Plants
Nicole Miller - Plants
Russell Minton - Snails
Wayne Ohnesorg - Insects
Jessica Orlofske - Insects
Jennifer Palladini - Insects
L. Brian Patrick - Spiders & Beetles
William Peterman - Amphibians
Ursula Petersen - Plants
Wendy Phillips - Fungi
John Placyk - Reptiles
Jennifer Ramirez - Mammals
Matthew Richardson - Plants
Steven Roels - Plants
Adam Rollins - Fungi
Neil Bernstein & Thomas Rosburg - Reptiles
Allison Sacerdote - Reptiles
Neil Sawyer - Plants
Nicholas Schmidt - Insects
Paul Skrade - Birds
Robert Stanton - Insects
Ryan Stephens - Mammals
James Stroh - Mammals
Keith Summerville - Insects
Irma Tapia - Mammals
Rebecca Tonietto - Insects
John Tooker - Insects
Kaitlin Uppstrom - Ants & Mites
Tim Vargo - Reptiles
Robin Verble - Insects
Joshua Wallace - Reptiles
Adam Wallner - Insects
Bill Welch - Reptiles & Amphibians
Jeremy White - Mammals
Jim Wiker - Insects
Ted Wilson - Insects
Amy Wolf - Insects
Eric Wood - Insects
Kathryn Yurkonis - Plants

Comments relating to our Small Grants Program from some of the researchers who won funding

I would like to thank you for your generous grant. With this financial assistance I hope to obtain useful data that will assist in making sound management decisions for the conservation of the yellow mud turtle in Illinois.

Sincerely,
Andrew J. Berger (IL)
"Terrestrial habitat use and movements of juvenile yellow mud turtles (Kinosternon flavescens) in Illinois" (2009)

This was the first time that I applied for a Prairie Biotic Research Grant. I thought that the application process was simple, direct, and meaningful. It asked for the bare bones amount of information without diminishing the need for valued information. With my teaching load, I do not have time to write large, complex grants. At the same time, I need small amounts of money to cover expenses for my students and provide the tools necessary to do meaningful research. Given the popularity of the program, the range of proposals funded, the varied topics, and the geographic range, I would say that the program is a stunning testiment to how small grants can fund research to answer big questions.

Thanks,
Neil Bernstein (IA)
" Sand dune succession following removal of pine planting: impacts on microclimates, habitat succession, and ornate box turtles" (2011)

The grant process for me was an exercise in learning how to articulate my project goals and objectives. I viewed the process as a learning experience, valuable for my project and education irrespective of funds being awarded. The opportunity to apply for and receive a small grant from Prairie Biotic Research has been encouraging. I feel encouraged in that an organization such as Prairie Biotic Research exists allowing for opportunities to graduate students or any individuals to facilitate research on the dynamic processes and ecosystem services of the prairies.

Sincerely,
Susan Chamberlain (WI)
"Persistence of local and non-local warm season grass varieties under warm season and cool season grazing cycles" (2009)

A most sincere thank you to the people that participated in this selection process. I find it amazing actually, with 96 proposals submitted, that the process was completed so quickly. I remember wondering how would I fit all of my information in three pages! Now, I see the sheer brilliance in the three-page limit. In fact, the entire process, from requesting the application information to the grant recipient notification email, has been handled professionally and in a very timely manner. I feel very fortunate to have submitted one of the proposals chosen for funding. Any assistance in funding has been difficult to obtain, largely due, I suspect, to the political and controversial nature that surrounds the Black-tailed prairie dog. In addition, due to most of the state being privately owned, cooperative and willing landowners are few; they are just as sparse as the species’ current distribution is in this region. Through education and research, we have the opportunity to explore the questions surrounding prairie dogs and their role in grasslands. I applaud the Prairie Biotic Research’s Small Grants Program and the funding powers-that-be for providing assistance to so many projects. I am extremely grateful for the assistance and the support.

Sincerely,
Stacy Duckett (TX)
"Monitoring a translocated population of black-tailed prairie dogs" (2009)

I wanted you to know how much I appreciate getting this funding from Prairie Biotic Research. PBR is the only donor I’ve ever heard of supporting prairie research (unusual) and specifically funding non-institutional researchers (unique). While I do volunteer work with some institutions, I’m not directly affiliated with any. This makes getting funding really difficult. And, of course, if the research is on a species that’s not holding up a development project somewhere, its almost never a priority. Of course, the real “bonus” is that this is one more step in pulling these natural systems and all their inhabitants back from the brink. I have a few thoughts on the grant process, but they can be summed up as: don’t make any major changes. Over the years, I’ve helped write grant applications for a local environmental nonprofit on whose board I serve. Almost invariably, the applications use vastly more space for justification for the project than the project itself, with page upon page of self-serving hyperbolic jargon as to how the project will enable the transformation of our civilization’s consciousness in ways that can be measured and counted but for which funding may not be included in the grant, blah blah, etc. Instead, the PBR grant application simply lets the project speak for itself. As PBR grows, as I’m sure it will (its too good an idea not to), keep it as simple as it is now.

Thanks for the support,
Steve Erickson (WA)
"Germination requirements of seed of Carex tumulicola" (2009)

Overall, I thought the process of the small grants program was great. I was a bit surprised by the need to mail eleven hard copies of the grant proposal form. Most other grant applications are sent by email. I loved the process of delivering the grant checks directly to the recipients. That was so much easier than having to fill out forms for the university department. It saved a lot of time and red tape (not to mention processing "fees"). I was impressed by the grassroots organization of Prairie Biotic Research and the level of professional trust you place in the grant recipients. With a check in the bank I was able to go out and purchase field supplies that week. I set up my data collection transects over spring break and got a jump start on the field season.

Thanks again,
Pete Eyheralde (IA)
"Seed dispersal by bison in tallgrass prairie" (2011)

It seems that you had more applicants than you did grants, so your program seems successful – at least to me.

The proposal form was problematic ... [problem since fixed] The form was straight forward and brief. I did not find the proposal process to be onerous.

The most important aspect to me as an applicant is fairness. I think Prairie Biotic Research, Inc. does a good job of this by providing the grant history information and with the proposal form as it stands.

The post proposal phase was also streamlined and easy – all I have to do now is the work!

Thank you,
Kent Fothergill (MO)
"Carabidae of Missouri sand prairies" (2011)

The small grant awarded by Prairie Biotic is an extremely useful contribution for my project investigating "The Importance of Savanna to Butterfly Communities". A small grant cannot fulfill all necessary expenditures for a research project. However, a small grant, such as this is invaluable for helping to pay for field items (e.g., butterfly nets, insect identification books) and to secure help in the form of undergraduate interns. Without these funds from small grants, it would be much more difficult to pursue research. Furthermore, the research grant awarded by Prairie Biotic is a great way for a graduate student like myself to pursue an avenue of research (e.g., butterfly and savanna conservation) that is of high personal interest, yet not the main focus of my dissertation. Hopefully this work will provide important data and insights into butterfly community responses to savanna restoration, and potential management guidelines for the conservation of butterflies. The help provided by this grant will allow me to pursue this project. Thank you very much for your support.
Sincerely,
Eric Wood (WI)
"Importance of savanna to butterfly communities" (2009)

Thank you for this award. I am deeply grateful for this affirmation of research ideas that have been in my mind for several years. As you know, funding for unrestricted natural history research is not easy to find. This grant allows me along with my colleague, Julie Whitman-Zai, to pursue a project with Agelenopsis spiders in the Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas grasslands that would not happen without your help. Julie and I used the competitive opportunity of your PBR Grant to focus our ideas. This summer’s research will make these ideas a reality. Your grant award gives me self-confidence to pursue our project and to apply for future grants. My work with spiders over the past five years has made me passionate about these arachnids and their place in our natural world. Deepening understanding and knowledge usually leads to more questions and possibilities for research. Thank you for funding our project, your support for our work, and contributing to future possibilities. I look forward to sending you our results.

With warm regards,
Maren M. Frances (CO)
"Field study of prairie funnel web spiders in the genus Agelenopsis (Family Agelenidae): What factors cause certain species to inhabit a narrowly defined prairie niche?" (2009)

Overall, I thought the process was just fine and comparable to other grants I've applied for. The one aspect that could be made easier is accepting grants via e-mail (probably as a .PDF) file rather than having to mail so many hard copies. This would make things quicker, use less paper, and alleviate the uncertainty of the Post Office.

I hope this is useful and, once again, thank you!

Cheers,
Eric Gangloff (CO)
"Project Thamnophis" (2011)

I want to thank the board members of Prairie Biotic Research for funding my proposal. During my master’s degree research, my collaborators and I discovered what an integral role the fragments of remaining tallgrass ecosystem of the central United States play in the ecology of the American burying beetle and its conspecifics. The basic ecology and biology of this endangered species remains largely unknown, as most current studies primarily focus on population surveys, with basic life history, disturbance factors, and communication modalities remaining unstudied. With the award of this Small Grant, we will begin focusing on the questions pertaining to the relationship between the American burying beetle and it fragile grassland habitat. Our work will have a direct impact on management and conservation practices aimed at saving not only the beetle, but its environment, as well. Without the support of PBR, this work would remain largely unfunded. We thank you for your insight and for valuing prairies and the plant and animal interactions that take place there. I appreciate the simple, straight-forward application that PBR uses for its grants. The application addresses all the key scholarly questions that provide the foundation for solid, well-focused primary research. One suggestion I might make is to increase the advertisement of this grant program. I heard of the PBR via word-of-mouth, through a string of approximately five people (six degrees of separation, if you will!). Perhaps consider advertising the foundation through professional meetings and journals such as “Ecosystem Ecology,” “The Kansas Entomological Society,” or even “Ecology.” Such advertisement would not only ensure a larger pool of applications each year, but may even serve to increase the number of foundations interested in contributing monetary support to the foundation and its mission. Again, I extend my sincere appreciation for this award. I look forward to sharing with you the findings of my research, and my future efforts to conserve this vital beetle genus and its tallgrass prairie habitat.

Sincerely,
Carrie Hall (ID)
"Disturbance ecology of the endangered American burying beetle: population dynamics and response to fire and grazing in Nicrophorus americanus at The Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma" (2009)

The funding provided by the Small Grants Program at Prairie Biotic Research is necessary for my research. Funding for field studies, especially those that deal with basic biological information is hard to find. Big grants secured by universities are important, but often only fund the minimum in terms of resources for field work. My project examines the habitat and life cycle of a rare butterfly that only flies during sunny weather in May in the prairies of the Pacific Northwest (needless to say, these days can be few and far between). Working with rare species in a time-limited system is quite challenging and securing funding to hire extra field assistants makes an enormous difference in the amount of data I am able to collect. Not only will the PBR funding greatly improve my graduate work, it will also provide another aspiring field biologist with the opportunity to work in this system and broaden her suite of field skills and knowledge of specific conservation issues here in the Northwest.

Thank you for supporting my research,
Erica Henry (WA)
"Filling in the gaps: Characterizing habitat requirements of an imperiled skipper, Polites mardon" (2009)

I found the process for the Small Grants Program to be clear and straightforward. When I was writing my application, I found the website to be a valuable aid. I learned a lot from reading through the researcher reports, the great variety of projects fascinated and inspired and made it easier to define and describe my own project. At present, no way of improving the process comes to mind.

All Best,
Scott King (MN)
"Study of the dragonfly Sympetrum madidum Hagen in northwestern Minnesota" (2011)

I am very satisfied with how the grant process was handled. The application was very manageable and I appreciated being notified that it had been received. For now, I have no suggestions for improvement. The funding from this grant will allow me to answer important questions because I now have the means to do so. The question I want to ask takes my study one step further than similar studies have gone in the past, making it unique. It will take a lot of work, but knowing that I am now able to get the needed supplies is a relief, and is also very encouraging.

Sincerely,
Raffica J. La Rosa (MI)
"Natural selection by pollinators on floral traits in three species of milkweed" (2009)

We wanted to take this opportunity to thank Prairie Biotic Research for awarding our project a small grant this year. It is somewhat disconcerting that while our base of knowledge of biology continues to grow exponentially each year, the availability of funds for basic natural history projects is ever dwindling. As more emphasis has been placed on complexities of biological systems, we find it increasingly difficult to procure funding for learning about very simple natural systems of which we still know very little. Our project to detect influences of grazing, prairie dogs, and fire on occupancy of herpetofauna in shortgrass prairie is a simple project that we expect to add to this base of knowledge. My collaborators and I largely conduct this research on our own time (i.e., volunteer time), out of a keen interest in learning more about our natural environment, and a vision to provide some basic information about prairie wildlife that will help conservation efforts. We wish to express our great appreciation to PBR for being able to provide a rare source of funding for projects related to natural history and basic biology. Providing this funding with few requirements keeps it simple; this enables us to spend our time conducting the research and not pushing paper! It is likely that without support from PBR, our research project would not be conducted in as timely a manner, and possibly might never have begun. Thank you so much for your wonderful grant program and your interest in our herpetile research! We look forward to reporting our results to you later this year!

Sincerely,
Danny Martin & Tom Mathies (CO)
"Habitat correlates and occupancy rates of herpetiles on shortgrass prairie" (2009)

I have been conducting field research for the last five years in a variety of ecosystems and on a variety of amphibian and reptile species. One thing that has remained a constant in every one of my research endeavors is the ever-present need for funding. Unfortunately, funding for many descriptive and natural history oriented research projects is very hard to come by. Much to my pleasure, I came across the Prairie Biotic Research Small Grants Program, which had very few restrictions. Such a grant has allowed me to ask broad research questions that may not come with preliminary data, well-refined hypotheses, or even have a known outcome. With the PBR grant I have been able to start my doctoral research program, which has already led to unique and previously undescribed findings of amphibians in prairie ecosystems. With these findings and data I can now write for other grants to further advance my research, but none of this would have been possible without the initial, open-ended support of PBR. In my experience, small grant issuing programs such as PBR are scarce, let alone provide such a large amount of support for so many inquiring researchers. I hope that PBR is able to continue dispersing small grants to future researchers, and I will forever be indebted to their support of me.

Bill Peterman (IN)
"From wasteland to prairie land: Impacts of prairie restoration and management of reclaimed surface mines on crawfish frog populations and amphibian species richness" (2009)

I am a first year graduate student and this grant is the first I have received from any funding source. I have a passion for natural history and field ecology but funding is difficult to find for the kinds of projects that interest me. Many institutions focus their funding efforts on very tangible items like expensive laboratory equipment and supplies, which are not what I need. My research is time and travel intensive and having Prairie Biotic Research provide funding for my transportation and time helps a lot. Although $1,000 may not seem like much when compared to the huge multi-year grants awarded by universities or government agencies, these small grants are both significant and sufficient for a variety of field ecology projects. My one recommendation for improving the grant process is to encourage donors to place fewer geographical restrictions on their funding. Prairie species and ecology are shared by many states in the Midwest and research done in one location is almost always applicable to other states in the region.

Cheers,
Steve Roels (KS)
"Herbivory and effects on reproduction in a Threatened prairie plant, Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii)" (2009)

My sincere thanks to the board of Prairie Biotic Research for choosing to fund my study of migration of Mountain Plovers. This money will allow me to return to Montana to collect geolocators that have been recording the daily positions of birds for the past year. I was extremely impressed with the entire grant process — not only in the organization and simplicity of the application but also with how quickly the ten reviewers were able to review 100+ proposals. Funding for field studies is becoming increasingly hard to find and I am very grateful for this opportunity to continue my study of this rare and fascinating shorebird.

Paul Skrade (IA)
"Migration and wintering of mountain plovers" (2011)

I find the process of PBR's Small Grant Program to be quite good. Announcement of the program occurs at a regular time every year, with easy access to application materials. PBR staff has always answered my questions with extraordinary speed and also has been very flexible and thoughtful when dealing with me. Feedback on the decision occurs
at a specific date and is always on time. PBR's grant process is perhaps the most open and clear that I know of: very few aspects of it are a "black box" that remains unknown to applicants. I applaud this facet of the program. My only suggestions for improvement would be to require a certain "sent by" date to validate applications instead of a "received by" date. It is difficult, for the applicant, to know when proposals willarrive, but easier to know when they are sent. Alternatively, applicants could submit PDF copies of their proposals by a certaindate.

Robert Stanton (NE)
"Plant host associations, recolonization ability, and effects of anthropogenic background noise on the cicada, Tibicen dorsatus, in tallgrass prairies" (2011)

I actually am very much in favor of the current approach used to rank and fund proposals. I think you have clear evidence that your "process" is working -- the range of proposals coming in and those being funded are broad in taxomomic, geographic, and disciplinary scope. Funded research leads to peer-reviewed publications and additional extramural funding for your PIs. If I had one recommendation for you and your Board — I see this year there was a proposal with an explicit connection to High School students. I would love to see PBR, Inc. establishing a restricted pool of money for integrated research and education grants. I am increasingly convinced that building the next generation of prairie botanists, entomologists, mycologists, etc. is something we need to be strategic about — capacity building is as critical as knowledge building. But I have the upmost respect for what PBR has done and continues to do.

Keith Summerville (IA)
"Use of grazing as a management tool to increase butterfly diversity" (2011)

I am highly grateful for the small grant that was provided to me by your organization. It has been difficult to attain larger grants due to the nature of our research. White-tailed jackrabbits receive little attention as they are not considered a game-species. They are a very interesting species and quite difficult to capture. This funding is providing me with the opportunity to fund my travel expenses to and from my site for the last few months of research and will bring me one step closer to attaining my M.S. degree. My only criticism of the process was the very limited space for providing details on the research, especially the 50 word summary. While writing the grant I was very concerned that the importance of the research would not come across in such limited wording. But I am relieved and excited that it was not the case for me and appreciate this grant giving me the opportunity to continue the limited research being done on white-tailed jackrabbits.

With Much Gratitude,
Irma Tapia (IA)
"Genetic diversity and connectivity in white-tailed jackrabbit populations in Iowa with notes on seasonal home ranges" (2009)

The process of acquiring one of your small grants is not too involved. I have written grants that require 10 pages of explanation. I do think that the on-line process is a benefit for those that can write it on-line. The fact that the form is a pdf that does NOT save the information is not very helpful. My suggestion might be to have a pdf form that can actually be submitted electronically instead of printing it out and mailing 11 copies! We should use our technology to save paper and time. Other than that simple suggestion, I believe your small grant process is easy to apply to and it does not require an abundance of ancillary information like some other grant applications.

Bill Welch (KS)
"Herpetefauna survey of the WSU field station" (2011)

I am grateful to Prairie Biotic Research, Inc. for funding our field study on the funnel web spider genus Agelenopsis. For five years now, my fellow Zoology Department volunteer at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science and I have been working on a general taxonomic revision of this group of thirteen species. The funding that we have received from your organization now allows us to narrow our focus, specifically to conduct an ecological and behavioral prairie biome study in both eastern New Mexico-western Oklahoma and Colorado on three of the species in this genus. Most of the research that we have conducted so far has been both broad and statistically based, so we are extremely excited to have the opportunity to do practical fieldwork where we can observe these funnel web spiders in their unique prairie habitat. I recognize that funding for field research is very difficult to obtain so we are very thankful to PBR for this grant.

Julie Whitman-Zai (CO)
"Field study of prairie funnel web spiders in the genus Agelenopsis (Family Agelenidae): What factors cause certain species to inhabit a narrowly defined prairie niche?" (2009)

First, I would like to thank you for funding the Mississippi River Bluffs invertebrate survey. I appreciate Prairie Biotic Research, Inc., for funding projects outside the boundary of large institutions and their research money. For me, Lepidoptera research is generally a self-funded venture in all aspects -- from field work to supplies and literature. This opportunity will boaden our knowledge in an area of Illinois that is lacking even the most basic survey research data. Without this type of funding this would not be possible as the expenses involved often determine my priorities. These grant funds will certainly help defray the costs incurred in this project. The only improvement I would recommend in this program would be funding of additional research projects of this type. Again, I must stress how grateful researchers like me are at having this type of grant opportunity. As you are well aware, there are many capable scientists that have vast knowledge of their particular regions. Without institutional affiliations their work is greatly limited, and funding options few, on what would be very worthwhile projects.

Very truly yours,
James R. Wiker (IL)
"Abundance and diversity of inverts (focus on skippers, moths and butterflies) on hill prairies, glades and woodlands along the Mississippi River Bluffs in Illinois" (2009)

Prairie Biotic Research, Inc. is pleased to announce its 2012 Small Grants Program. The following documents describe the process in more detail. Submit your proposal to Prairie Biotic Research, Inc., 831 Ridgewood Ave., Ames, IA 50010. We must receive your proposal by mail before January 6, 2012.

Small Grant Announcement

Proposal Information

Proposal Form

Researcher Agreement Form

Historic Summary Part 1

Historic Summary Part 2

What is the process and how are funding decisions made in our Small Grants Program?

Proposals are numbered in the order of their arrival. Shortly after our deadline for receipt of proposals in early January, they are sorted into piles and then mailed to each of our scientific advisors. Reviewing dozens of proposals requires hard copies, tangible items that can be picked up and set down again and again in the sorting and winnowing process. This is why we
require each applicant to provide multiple hard copies, one for each of our scientific advisors and one for the person coordinating this program. Each scientific advisor reviews all of the proposals, winnows out the best 20 and ranks those 1-20. The other proposals not ranked by that reviewer are given the rank of 21. The individual rankings of our scientific advisors are then summed, yielding a composite ranking that drives the board's funding decisions, tempered only by the restrictions (usually geographic, rarely taxonomic) some donors place on their gifts. Low score wins in this arrangement.

Unlike many granting agencies, we do not provide our reviewers with a list of weighted criteria for their consideration. Instead, we urge them simply to use their best judgment, independently of each other. Each has different knowledge and experience to bring to this task, and we expect their rankings to differ as a result. By then combining their individual rankings into a composite ranking, we believe the best proposals become apparent. So, the scientific advisors do the underlying work, but our board is ultimately responsible for funding decisions.

This process is opaque. There is no way to tell anyone why their proposal did not win funding. If your proposal does not win funding, please do not take offense or feel too much disappointment, but try to take it stride. Ours is a value-laden process and is unusual. Don't let such a setback slow you down! Every year, we wish we could fund more proposals than we have money to support.

So, what are our values?

We support basic field biological research on all taxa in U.S. prairies and savannas, but we are especially eager to support research on taxa for which funding is scarce, such as insects, fungi, reptiles, spiders, etc. We don't fund many bird projects, in part because there are generally more funds available for the study of birds.

We are most likely to support researchers who do not already have significant funding. We're more likely to provide your first bit of funding than to throw more money on the heap already at your disposal. This makes us unusual.

We are most likely to support low-tech methods that leave the researcher sweaty. We want the researcher to get out into the field to look at the real world there, and so we value laboratory work a little less, though that is a component of many of the projects we have funded. This makes us unusual.

Though we fund experimental research, we also fund natural history, which is almost impossible to find money for, today. This makes us very unusual.

We like to fund proposals that anticipate publications and
presentations, as this public sharing of information is an essential part of scientific research. We also favor collection of informative museum specimens for future researchers' use.

We favor researchers who are clearly doing their own thing, rather than doing someone else's thing. Our emphasis is on empowering individuals, independent researchers. This makes us unusual.

Is the researcher proposing to look at something in a new way, or is this simply the next iteration of the same old process?

All of our board members and scientific advisors practice this sort of basic biotic research themselves and we are all keen on biodiversity and it conservation, including ecological management and restoration. Is the proposed research likely to provide information that is useful in conservation? This is not a requirement, but it is one value our scientific advisors consider.

Is the researcher operating alone, or is there some teaching aspect to what they propose? Are there research assistants who will also learn through this process?

Is the proposal simple and clearly presented? Some funding agencies prefer to be dazzled by jargon but we value simple clarity. This is why we require you to fit your proposal into the same space that everyone else must use. You must distill your thoughts and your language to fit the space provided on the form. It is also a huge help to the reviewers to have the dozens of proposals all be in exactly the same format.

Some of our scientific advisors want to know why you are proposing to do this research, but others of us want simply to perceive your pressing need to pursue your own interest, for whatever reason. In fact, the proposals most likely to win funding are often those where it is plain that the researcher intends to do this work and our funding, crucial though it may be, is not the driving factor; rather, the curiosity of the researcher is the driving factor.

Historical Summary of Small Grants Program

Distribution of Grants

BY RESEARCH SUBJECT

BY STATE

Geographically Unrestricted Funds (click on header to sort)

Geographically Restricted Funds (click on header to sort)

Comments relating to our Small Grants Program from some of the researchers who won funding

"We Foster Curiosity"