Flower demystification

As Paul suspected, this is a Phalaenoposis flower.  Here it is again, shown next to another flower on the same plant (but different stalk):

  

As to the second question – why does it look this way – there could be a number of reasons.  I’m leaning toward environmental.  This particular flower stalk is an old one – after it had bloomed initially (with normal flowers), we left it on after the flowers fell.  As often happens, new flower buds appeared, but all of them have been abnormal.  Some were completely fused and never opened.  This one is missing most of its petals.

Other reasons could include viral infection (as Sheila suggested) or somaclonal variation (common in tissue cultured plants, which is how many orchids are propagated).  But this flower stalk is perpetually colder than the rest of the plant as it’s closest to the window.  And since its first crop of flowers were normal, I think this variation is due to cold temperature interference during flower development.

If you have other ideas, be sure to post them!

Right and Left

Just got a picture of the cover of a new book I’ve got coming up soon.  It’s a collaborative project with an old friend of mine who is a political science professor at UNC Charlotte.  We look at a bunch of different environmental issues, different things that the government could do about these issues, and then we rate these options by how the well the right and left wingers would like them.  Sure to tick people off!  The book won’t be out till next January — It’s typically over a year between when something is first turned in and when it comes out — that’s just publishing.

Permaculture – my final thoughts

We’ve had some good, vigorous discussion about permaculture, specifically around the book Gaia’s Garden.  I’ve pointed out some problems with the author’s understanding of relevant plant and soil sciences and will wrap up this week with a look at the glossary and bibliography.

Glossary

The glossary contains a number of scientific-sounding words and phrases with unscientific definitions; for example:

“Buffer plants: Plants placed between guilds or between allelopathic species. They should be compatible with the trees in each guild and should have a positive effect on one or both of the guilds to be linked.” (“Buffer plants” is a phrase legitimately used in ecological restoration where plantings separate wetlands or other natural areas from human activity.)

“Guild: A harmoniously interwoven group of plants and animals, often centered around one major species, that benefits humans while creating habitat.” (The term “guild” is ecological and refers to groups of species that exploit the same types of resources.  It has been hijacked and redefined for permaculture.)

“Narcissistic: Plants that thrive on the leaf litter of members of their own family, such as the Solanaceae, or nightshade family.” (In this case, this is an unscientific term given a scientific-sounding – but nonsensical – definition.)

“Polycultures: Dynamic, self-organizing plant communities composed of several to many species.” (Polyculture is an agricultural term referring to the planting of multiple crops. It’s a cultural strategy in Integrated Pest Management.)

“Sectors: Areas where outside energies such as wind, sun, fire and so forth enter a site. These energies can be mitigated, captured, or otherwise influenced by placement of elements in the design.”

Bibliography

There are only two books I would consider scientific; one soils textbook from 1996 and the other is Odum’s classic text Fundamentals of Ecology (1971). I’m disappointed in how scarce and dated these references are, given the wealth of more recent articles and books that are both relevant to urban gardens and scientifically sound.

The bibliography also includes many books on design and I’m not including them in this critique. Of those that remain, the bulk are nonscientific and in many cases pseudoscientific. Examples of the latter include The Albrecht Papers (Albrecht, 1996), Weeds and What They Tell (Pfeiffer, 1981).

And this last criticism embodies what permeates much of Gaia’s Garden: pseudoscience. In the glossary, we see scientific-sounding terms or definitions that are ultimately meaningless or incorrect. Furthermore, we see scientifically legitimate terms such as guild used incorrectly. Both of these practices are characteristics of a pseudoscience.

I think this is unfortunate. I’ve mentioned before that I agree with much of the philosophy behind permaculture. But dressing up this philosophy as science both misleads nonexperts and alienates scientists.

So here’s a challenge – why not write a new book on permaculture and collaborate with a scientist? (I know a few who are writers!)

Is Black The New Brown?

Mulch is always an interesting point of discussion as well as the topic of several past GP posts. But I honestly can’t recall if we’ve covered dyed mulch, and can’t search the site, so here goes.

I recently received a request for information from Debbie Dillon, a fine Urban Horticulturist with Virginia Cooperative Extension.  She noted the increased use of dyed mulch in the Northern Virginia area, and has been fielding questions from both landscape designers and homeowners regarding the safety of said mulch and the potential for harmful effects on plants. Black seems to be a fave color of late.

All I could offer her at the time was “Bleccch, I really don’t care for it” and a promise to investigate further. Armed with a bit of spare time and Google – here’s what [little] I’ve found out.

There are several products out there, such as Solarfast MCH and Mulch Magic. They’re used commercially on bulk mulch and are also available to the homeowner without restriction. From the Solarfast website – “Solarfast MCH is a colorant used to restore faded mulch back to its original color. It is environmentally friendly and does not contain hazardous chemicals, heavy metals or other ingredients that are known to be harmful to the environment.”

Is it safe?

The MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for Solarfast was incomplete – it did not list components. The MSDS for Mulch Magic indicates the black contains carbon black, red contains iron oxide, and brown contains diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (as well as carbon black and iron oxide). The composition beyond that (carriers, surfactants, etc.), was not noted.  Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether is a fairly common solvent for paints and inks with purportedly low environmental toxicity, but can irritate skin and eyes. Carbon black can be made from various sources but is basically a petroleum product, used in laser printer and photocopier toner as well as the manufacture of reinforced rubber (i.e. tires).  Most concerns are related to worker inhalation at the point of manufacture. Iron oxide is, well, oxidized iron, and has been used as a pigment for quite a while (i.e. cave paintings at Lascaux, Bob Ross, etc.).

What about the plants?

There are many, many studies on pigmented film mulches (usually polyethylene) in fruit and vegetable production.  Certain colors can alter plant growth and processes, such as flowering and fruiting, stem length, etc., but I couldn’t find a thing regarding dyed, wood-product mulch. Issues of concern might be that the dye is disguising the composition of the mulch. Apparently dyes are frequently used on “pallet mulch” – shredded pallets, usually made from softwood. Another concern might be the increase in root-zone temperature, especially from the use of heat-absorbing black pigments. Could soil temperatures warm to the point of causing a too-early bud break?

Is it aesthetically pleasing?

Apparently “yes”, to some, because there’s a market for it. What do you think?


This photo was taken in April at a local medical center (it was a rainy morning, pardon the low light). The fairly typical commercial landscape surrounding the building is dotted with beds and trees freshly mulched in black. Note the classic mulch “volcano” in the background. No sir, I don’t like it. But that’s just me.

Toxicity information on compounds noted available at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – Summaries &  Evaluations,  http://www.inchem.org/

Is Fall Really a Great Time to Plant Trees?

One of the joys of working on a university campus is that construction never seems to end.  As near as I can tell there are about 3,000 orange construction barrels that permanently reside on the MSU campus that simply get shuffled from one end of campus to the other every few months.  Along with all the construction comes a never ending series of new landscape projects.  Driving by one of the most recent projects the other day got me to thinking about the myth of Fall planting.  In numerous extension bulletins and certainly in nursery sales advertising we hear that “fall is the perfect time to plant trees”.


Photo: Dana Ellison

The recent fall planting job on our campus gave me pause to think about this.  I haven’t had a chance to completely survey the carnage but I suspect about a third of the trees will need to be replaced.  Obviously there are lots of things that may have gone wrong here, irrespective of when the trees were planted and one exception doesn’t prove the rule.  Nevertheless when I look back on the planting disasters I’ve been called in to inspect over the years a disproportional share (I’d say by a factor of two or three to one) are fall planting jobs.

 

What gives?  Well, the notion that fall is a great time for planting is built in a faulty premise, at least for this part of the country.  Probably the most commonly cited reason for fall planting is that trees grow a lot of roots in the fall.  This assumes that since there’s no shoot growth occurring, trees automatically shift reserves below-ground.   There is certainly a ‘pecking order’ of carbohydrate distribution within a tree based on relatively strengths of sources and sinks.  But there’s one factor that trumps all others: temperature.  Soil temperature is the biggest driver of root growth.  Measurements of new root growth in a cottonwood plantation in Wisconsin provide a classic example.  As temperatures decline in the fall, new root growth essentially ceases.  For trees that are well established, this is no problem.  For trees that have just been transplanted and need to re-establish root-soil contact this is a tough row to hoe.  Throw in a tough Michigan or Wisconsin winter and the tree’s facing an uphill climb.

 


New root growth of eastern cottonwood (top) and soil temperature (bottom). Source: Kern et al. 2004. Tree Phys. 24:651-660.

Again, most planting failures have multiple causal factors.  Even if the trees on this site had been planted in the spring, they may have still experienced problems.  My point is that a more accurate statement is “Fall is an OK time to plant trees”; not the ‘best’ time or even a ‘great’ time.  I think these statements are often driven by the fact the fall is a slow time for nurseries and landscapers.  When homeowners or landscapers ask me about fall planting the first thing I ask is if there is any reason why they can’t wait until spring, the real ‘best’ time for planting.

Friday puzzler unearthed!

Lots of good guesses this week! As many of you realized, this is a huge tree root making the best of a small tree pit.  But it’s not a Norway maple (sorry John) or a mulberry (sorry Robert), but a sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) (congratulations Brian!).  (You can see the little mace-like seed pods on the ground.)  The root does resemble a bicep (“Treebeard’s elbow”) flexing to crack the concrete (aka Robert’s  Concretious blandmulsia):

Though sweetgum can be nice urban trees, their roots are quite vigorous and can lift sidewalks several inches above grade as they increase in diameter:

>

Thanks for all the entries – our readers are smart and funny!