Advancing the science of gardening and other stuff since 2009
Author: Linda Chalker-Scott
Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott has a Ph.D. in Horticulture from Oregon State University and is an ISA certified arborist and an ASCA consulting arborist. She is WSU’s Extension Urban Horticulturist and an Associate Professor in the Department of Horticulture, and holds two affiliate associate professor positions at University of Washington. She conducts research in applied plant and soil sciences, publishing the results in scientific articles and university Extension fact sheets.
Linda also is the award-winning author of five books: the horticultural myth-busting The Informed Gardener (2008) and The Informed Gardener Blooms Again (2010) from the University of Washington Press and Sustainable Landscapes and Gardens: Good Science – Practical Application (2009) from GFG Publishing, Inc., and How Plants Work: The Science Behind the Amazing Things Plants Do from Timber Press (2015). Her latest effort is an update of Art Kruckeberg’s Gardening with Native Plants of the Pacific Northwest from UW Press (2019).
In 2018 Linda was featured in a video series – The Science of Gardening – produced by The Great Courses. She also is one of the Garden Professors – a group of academic colleagues who educate and entertain through their blog and Facebook pages. Linda’s contribution to gardeners was recognized in 2017 by the Association for Garden Communicators as the first recipient of their Cynthia Westcott Scientific Writing Award.
"The Garden Professors" Facebook page - www.facebook.com/TheGardenProfessors
"The Garden Professors" Facebook group - www.facebook.com/groups/GardenProfessors
Over the last couple of weeks I’ve been in London having some unforgettable garden experiences. Thanks to the generosity of my UK colleagues Glynn Percival and Jon Banks I was treated to Kew Gardens, RHS Wisley Gardens, and Windsor Castle. I hope to construct several blog posts from these visits, but today’s post is an homage to the English garden meadow. Instead of monocultural turf lawns, mowed and sprayed into submission, why not consider a more biodiverse and visually pleasing approach to groundcover?
As the title of this post suggests, this is not a new topic in our blog. (You can read other related posts here, here, and here.) What was so stunning about these garden meadows (meadow gardens?) was the scale and effortless beauty. For instance, consider this tree-lined parkway at Kew, covered with English daisies.
I saw my first honest-to God cowslip in a meadow garden at the British Museum of Natural History.
How about these adorable tiny daffodils and checker lilies?
And here they are en masse.
This isn’t to say that the formal lawn isn’t a thing in England, It is.
But unless you have a castle, a baseball diamond, or a putting green to manage, why not consider something more appealing, not only to the eye but to your beneficial wildlife?
In my educational seminars I’ve long shared a version of the CRAAP test (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose) for analyzing information related to gardens and landscapes. My version is CRAP (credibility, relevance, accuracy, purpose), and we’ve published an Extension Manual that explains in detail how to apply it. This past week I was at the Philadelphia Flower Show participating in Bartlett’s Tree Care Update panel. Given that the theme of the show was “Flower Power,” I figured that a talk on Magical Mystery Cures was in order. And the 1960’s was the decade where the late Jerry Baker gained prominence as a garden authority – and whose presence is still widely felt nearly 60 years later.
Now, I could spend the rest of the year discussing all of Jerry’s advice, tips, and tonics for gardens – but it’s more useful to determine whether he is a credible source of reliable information. So let’s apply the CRAP test.
C = credibility. What are Jerry’s credentials as a garden expert? It’s easy to find this information from the internet, including the Jerry Baker website. He had no academic training in plant or soil sciences but started his career as an undercover cop who often posed as a landscaper. His books are all popular publications, meaning they have not gone through critical review by experts before publication.
R = relevance. For our purposes, his information is relevant to our focus of managing gardens and landscapes (as opposed to production agriculture, for instance).
A = accuracy. Jerry’s advice is not based on any scientific source. He relies on common-sense approaches, folklore, and his grandmother’s advice. In fact, many of his assertions are at odds with published scientific evidence. Now, science evolves, and older scientific publications are sometimes found to be inaccurate after new information comes to light. If Jerry’s books were meant to be accurate sources of information, they would be updated with new findings as subsequent editions were published. This is what happens with textbooks, for example.
P = purpose. What is Jerry’s ultimate purpose? It’s sales. There’s no way around this conclusion. Over twenty million copies of his books have been sold, and during his career he became the spokesperson for several gardening products. Probably the most well-known of these was the Garden Weasel (which parenthetically is a great way to destroy fine roots and soil structure). There’s no doubt he was a brilliant self-promoter and marketer. But he was not a reliable resource, and many of his “tips and tonics” are extraordinarily harmful to plants, pets, and the environment.
While I was wrapping up my research on Jerry Baker I was particularly taken by a chapter in one of his books (one of his Back to Nature Almanacs) called “The Tree Quacks.” I thought some of these quotes were particularly ironic:
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that these quotes were actually not his own. In fact, the entire chapter was plagiarized from a 1964 article by John Haller in Popular Science, which is online. This action is uncomfortably similar to his 1985 trademarking of the phrase “America’s Master Gardener,” 12 years after the Master Gardener program was formed (but not trademarked) at Washington State University.
I hope this post has helped you learn to analyze the credibility of information and information sources. If so, you can claim the of America’s Master CRAPper ™!
Last week I discussed the mechanics of how cold hardy plants can survive temperatures far below freezing. Today we’ll consider the practical implications of this phenomenon and what, if anything, you can do to help your plants through cold snaps.
What happens when temperatures change at unusually high rates?
Remember, supercooling occurs when temperatures drop slowly, allowing water to leave living cells and freeze in the dead spaces between cells. When rates drop quickly, which can happen on sunny winter days once the sun goes down, water can freeze inside the cells before it has time to migrate into the extracellular space. When that happens, those cells die when ice crystals pierce the cell membrane. Sometimes this damage will be visible right away – you’ll see water-soaked areas in leaves, for instance, where the contents of the cells have leaked into the extracellular spaces.
In other cases you may not see damage until spring, especially in buds that have frozen. The scales prevent you from seeing what’s happened to the tissues in the bud, but once warmer temperatures arrive you will see brown or black leaf and flower buds. These are NOT diseased buds, though they are often colonized by opportunistic pathogens.
What about wind chill?
The wind chill question is an interesting one. Despite the way it feels to you, wind chill does NOT lower the temperature below the ambient air temperature. It just cools things off faster than they would without the wind. For cold hardy plants, this has two important effects:
The rate of temperature decrease around the plant speeds up – so ice can form faster than normal. This can result in freeze damage to the plant as described above.
The wind itself is dehydrating, pulling away water from plant tissues and causing freeze-induced dehydration (as discussed last week). This also causes damage to susceptible tissues and is often called winter burn.
So even though the temperature itself is not lowered by wind, the rate at which it decreases and the additional dehydration stress means that plants can be damaged at temperatures they would normally survive in the absence of wind.
What can we do to help plants survive?
Before cold temperatures are expected, it is critical to mulch the soil well with a thick layer of coarse, woody mulch. This insulates the soil and roots, which are the least cold tolerant of all plant tissues. Roots never go dormant, so they are generally unable to supercool much more than a few degrees below freezing. Oh, and be sure your soil is moist (but not waterlogged). Moist soil is a better heat sink than dry soil.
Next, be sure insulate freeze-susceptible plants. This can be done by constructing a cage of chicken wire around small trees and shrubs, filling it with leaves, and then wrapping it in burlap. Containers should be moved to the leeward side of the house or other building and grouped together. The containers need to be protected from freezing at all costs.
Speaking of insulation, snow is a great insulator. But it’s not always best to leave it in place. If temperatures are cold and snow is dry and light, leave it in place to insulated tissues. But if temperatures are near freezing and the snow is wet and heavy, remove it as much as possible. Its insulative value is marginal and the damage that heavy snow can do to trees and shrubs is permanent.
With record low temperatures in some parts of the country, gardeners are understandably worried about the ability of their perennial and woody plants to survive the cold. What today’s post will do is give you some context for understanding how plants can survive temperatures far below freezing.
Why ice floats and how this damages cells
Everyone knows that ice floats, whether it’s an iceberg in the ocean or cubes in your favorite chilled beverage. Ice is lighter than water because its molecular structure is different: there is more space between water molecules in ice. When water freezes naturally, the molecules organize into hexagons, forming a crystalline lattice (which helps explain why snowflakes look the way they do). This hexagonal shape forces water molecules farther away from each other, resulting in a porous material that’s lighter than liquid water.
As ice crystals grow, they take up more space than the water did in liquid form. You know this if you have ever left a filled can or bottle in a freezer. The pressure can blow off the lid or split the container – and the same thing happens to animal cells: the membranes are distended until they burst. But plant cells are different: there are cell walls outside the membrane which are rigid and prevent membrane rupture. However, ice crystals are sharp and can lacerate membranes, including those in plant cells.
How cold hardy plants avoid freeze damage
Woody plants have evolved a mechanism to survive winters that allows ice formation in certain areas and prevents it in others. This process takes advantage of the fact that plant cells have walls, and that the area between the cells – called the extracellular space – is not alive. Extracellular space is filled with gases and liquids – including water. Water can freeze in these spaces without causing damage because there are no membranes in extracellular spaces, only cell walls. As ice freezes in these “dead” spaces, more liquid water is drawn into them by diffusion from the adjoining cells. There are two outcomes of this: one is that ice only forms in the dead space, not the cells themselves, and two is that the liquid inside the cells becomes more concentrated.
Water that is full of dissolved substances (like sugars and salts) is less able to form ice crystals because there are relatively fewer water molecules in concentrated solutions. We can see this when we add deicers to frozen walkways and roads. The ability of water to stay in liquid form at temperatures below freezing is called supercooling. Plants that are cold hardy are able to tolerate ice formation in dead tissues and avoid ice formation in living tissues by supercooling.
Supercooling is different than flash freezing
We need to discard any comparison of supercooling to flash freezing, a process used for cryopreservation. Flash freezing rapidly lowers the temperature of the tissue or organism being preserved at rates far faster than what happens in nature. The water molecules don’t arrange themselves in a crystalline lattice as they freeze. Instead they form small crystals in an unstructured form, which don’t take up more space than liquid water. This means that ice doesn’t damage the cells, which are still viable once thawed.
Supercooling is a process that occurs under natural conditions, which usually mean slow decreases in temperature. This allows water to continue to move out of the cells into the extracellular space where it freezes. (There are exceptions to this naturally slow rate, and I’ll discuss those in a follow up post.)
There is a limit to supercooling
Unfortunately for plants (and gardeners) there are limits to supercooling. These limits vary with species but even the most cold hardy plants will eventually experience injury and death. The reason this happens, however, isn’t from the freezing itself, but from drought stress. Let’s look at what’s happening inside the cells during supercooling.
As water continues to diffuse into the extracellular spaces, the cell becomes less turgid; this is called freeze-induced dehydration. Without water forcing the cell membranes against the walls, the membranes start to pull away as water is lost. Eventually the membranes and plasmodesmata (which connect living cells to one another) are stretched and break. These cells are now dead – they are isolated from the rest of the plant and the torn membranes allow liquid to seep out. So cells, tissues, and entire plants that die from low temperature stress are usually killed by drought stress!
In my follow up post, I’ll discuss the practical significance of this phenomenon, including rapid temperature changes in natural and the influence of wind. And, of course, some suggestions on how to help plants survive these stressful conditions.
Welcome to 2019! In keeping with the tradition of a new year, I’m hoping you will join me in resolving to promote good gardening science among your friends, relatives, colleagues, and customers. One of the most important tools you’ll need is a collection of resources that are not only science-based, but are relevant to gardens and landscapes (not agricultural production). With that in mind, here’s my list of authors and institutions who are credible resources.
First off, of course, I’ll have to start with the Garden Professor faculty. While this blog is a great archive of information from all of us, some of us have also published books and articles, recorded podcasts, webinars, and DVDs.
These are popular publications rather than peer-reviewed journal articles. But the authors have solid credentials and years of experience in teaching and research. That makes them reliable sources of information, and while no one is infallible, these authors are active learners and educators. You can be sure that they present the information in their disciplines as accurately and objectively as possible.
Print and digital media – university Extension publications
Ideally, university Extension publications undergo stringent peer review and are updated regularly. In reality, not all Extension publications are equal in quality. I’m on the faculty at Washington State University and one of my jobs is to keep our Home Garden series of articles current (http://gardening.wsu.edu/). I can confidently say that the fact sheets and manuals on our site have been through peer review and are as accurate as possible. Some are getting near the end of their shelf life (five years at WSU) and need to be revised or removed.
Are there other universities that have peer-reviewed, current, and relevant Extension publications for gardens and landscapes? If so, please add them to the comments and I will check them out. (To save time and aggravation, please check these out yourself first. Don’t just list them and wait for me to go through them with a critical eye.)
Social media, including blogs and Facebook
I first got into social media with the construction of my Informed Gardener web page. The white papers, podcasts and other materials housed here are all science based, but they have not been through peer review. Many of them have been adapted into peer-reviewed Extension fact sheets but all of them represent a collection of relevant information that remains accurate despite being dated. Hey, there’s only so much I can do…
And yes, I’ve probably left someone or something out
By now you’re probably saying “What about Dr. X’s Facebook page or Professor Y’s blog?” This post is admittedly narrow, because I only know the people that I know. I’d like to expand the recommendations in this post to include other discipline experts who have information directly relevant to the mission of the Garden Professors. (This means we are NOT including information more relevant to farming or other types of agricultural production.)
So feel free to add your suggestions as comments, keeping in mind the criteria I mentioned above. Hopefully what we can create together is a really nice resource list for all us to use.
As many of you know, the Garden Professors host a Facebook group dedicated to the discussion of science-based practices for gardens and landscapes. (Side note – if you haven’t joined us please do!) Recently we’ve had a spate of “what’s wrong with my plant” posts, usually focusing on some leaf issue and little other information. And far too often an eager group member will jump in with a fertilizer recommendation. So today’s blog post has two objectives: explaining why you can’t reliably diagnose problems from a picture of suffering leaves and why blanket fertilizer recommendations should be avoided.
To illustrate the problem with armchair diagnosis, consider this photo below.
Now there are two ways to ask a question here: the first is “what’s wrong with these leaves” and the second is “what’s wrong with my plant.” We can easily answer the first one: there is nutrient deficiency in the leaves, most probably iron or manganese. But that does NOT mean there is a deficiency in the soil. So we can’t address “what’s wrong with my plant” because we don’t have enough information.
How can we determine what’s wrong? My first question to the poster is invariably “have you had a soil test?” Soil test results will indicate whether the element in question is actually deficient, and will provide levels of other nutrients that could interfere with root uptake. If there’s no deficiency of the nutrient in question, then adding fertilizer is not going to help! And adding fertilizer unnecessarily can create further soil nutrient imbalances and contribute to environmental pollution.
Once we have the soil test results, we can then begin to address “what’s wrong with my plant.” But not from the original picture. (If you are curious about what else could be causing this problem, check out this blog post from 2011.)
Let’s try another. Consider the leaves in this photo:
We now know to ask “what’s wrong with these leaves?” Ignore for now the deficiencies in the older leaves and look at the size of youngest ones compared to the older. The answer is fairly straightforward here: there was too little water available when the newly emerging leaves were expanding. Leaf expansion depends on turgor pressure – the higher the turgor pressure, the larger the leaves get. Once expansion stops, protective plant biochemicals are laid down which prevent further expansion. By comparing the youngest leaves to the leaves from previous years, you can see that they are significantly smaller. But why?
Again, we need more information before we can answer “what’s wrong with my plant.” Was there too little available soil water during leaf expansion? It’s possible, but this example is from western Washington State, a climatic region with wet springs. Most likely there is an issue with the roots. My first question with these cases is “can you easily move the plant in the ground?” This is my “wiggle test” – a way to determine if roots are established. In this case – and in nearly every case like this that I’ve seen personally – the roots are NOT established. Often this is because the plant (1) was not bare-rooted at planting and/or (2) was planted too deeply. Without decent root establishment there is not enough water uptake to support full turgor in expanding leaves.
Lack of an established root system also account for the interveinal chlorosis you can see in the oldest leaves. These leaves are fully expanded, probably because the plant was still at the nursery when these leaves emerged. But their color is off. A root system that doesn’t supply sufficient water for leaf expansion is by default not going to provide sufficient nutrients, either. Adding fertilizer to this plant is not going to help! It needs to be dug up and replanted correctly or replaced. It is never going to thrive under the current conditions.
Armchair diagnosis can be accurate and fun if you follow a set of guidelines to extract more information. But simply recommending a fertilizer based on leaf appearance is neither science-based nor environmentally responsible.
As many avid GP readers are aware, mulches are a common horticultural tool that help gardeners maintain soil moisture, nutrient content, weed suppression and assist in disease prevention. The best mulch is made from chipped tree trimmings wastes and has a large wood content. Coarse “arborist chips” mulch is fast becoming one of the most frequently sought after mulches for residential landscapes. It is very effective and contributes to significant soil improvements over time. As chip mulches decompose, the fruiting bodies of fungi are often seen growing up through mulch. Sometimes, as gardeners work in previously mulched beds, they see mycelium or cordons (rhizomorphs) of mulch fungi growing through the mulch. Some gardeners are not fond of finding mushrooms growing in their mulch and have termed these as “nuisance fungi”. There have even been extension leaflets on nuisance fungi and how to rid them from your garden!! Fungi are a natural part of mulch breakdown and their presence in mulches is desirable!
The first encounter many gardeners have with mulch fungi is when they see “mold” growing in the chips or at the interface of mulch and soil. Mold gets a bad rap with many homeowners when they find it after water damage in their house, so perhaps they assume it is also bad for their gardens. Mold abatement in homes has become a specialized industry, and while the spores of some fungi can be human pathogens, fungi are not to be feared in gardens unless your immune system is damaged or otherwise compromised. Unlike houses, gardens are a good place for fungi to grow and thrive.
Fungi absorb water and nutrients from their hyphae which grow into their food (mulch particles). The absorptive lifestyle of fungi is unique. Since fungi have no internal digestive systems, they rely on excreting enzymes outside their bodies and into their food which breaks down the substrate so they can absorb it. By doing so, they also release minerals, sugars, amino acids and many other compounds for other microbes and plants to utilize. Fungi are mostly saprophytes or decomposers, and their role is to release organic nutrients to soil so they can be recycled. This is why mulches are so beneficial to woody plants. Without fungi, forest litter would pile up largely undecomposed because bacteria and other microbes are less efficient in breaking down cellulose. Some fungi are mutualistic partners with woody plant roots. Ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungi rely on interactions between trees themselves and the litter or mulch layers under trees. Fruiting bodies of EM fungi may appear as mushrooms or puff balls in or next to mulches.
Sometimes fruiting bodies (mushrooms) push through mulch, but are not the result of mulch presence. Pathogens such as Armillaria mellea (oak root fungus) can form through mulch layers or turfgrass, but they are fruiting off the dead roots of their tree host. Similarly, the inky cap mushrooms (Coprinus spp.) often grow saprophytically on dead roots (they are not the cause of root death) and will push through litter layers. Coprinus are good indicators that a tree has dead roots. Coprinus is not a plant pathogen, and mulch does not increase prevalence of pathogens in landscapes. As we have discussed many times in the blog, mulches are unlikely to spread or support plant pathogenic fungi.
Another way to view the role of fungi is the chemistry that they facilitate in soil. Mulch is organic matter, which has a high concentration of carbon. Carbon is transformed from a solid form into a gas – carbon dioxide – through the action of microbes (mostly fungi). So oxidation of carbon is driven by fungi growing through their substrate (forest litter in forests or mulch in gardens). In mulching systems this is a slow process taking a few years. In composting systems it is rapid, taking months with the added energy of mechanical turning etc. Slow decomposition of organic matter is useful, as the benefits of mulch in suppressing weeds, slowing evaporation from soils etc. are maintained over time. Slowly oxidizing carbon means that it will be around longer, creating less greenhouse gasses than in the composting process.
In publications that recommend ways for “dealing with nuisance fungi” it is suggested to let mulch dry out, which stops the action of the fungi. This is one of the most harmful things that can be done for active mulch zones. Killing the fungi in mulch also stops their oxidation of carbon, subsequent nutrient release and support for the high microbial activity in mulches that benefit both plants and disease suppressing fungi that plants rely upon to maintain their health. While fungi can reactivate when dry mulches are moistened, their biomass is damaged by severe drought which also injures plant roots as well.
All good things come to an end or as our physics friends say, “Entropy increases!!” So as labile (easily metabolized) carbon is used up in fresh mulches, fungi go into spore bearing or reproductive phases and begin to make fruiting bodies. As long as there is labile carbon, fungi will thrive and grow mycelium and hyphae into their food. When carbon is being used up (or when there is sufficient mycelium), fruiting bodies start to form. To maintain these processes, it is important to add fresh mulch over the old decaying mulch. Once or twice a year depending on temperature and moisture levels. Along the way, some mulch may develop fungal fruiting bodies. Fruiting bodies may resemble mushrooms, puff balls, earth stars, bird nest fungi, or simply resemble paint that has been splashed on the wood chips. They are only trying to survive by developing spores which will later spread onto fresh mulch materials. Most mulch fungi have very ephemeral fruiting bodies, so even if they are seen to be a “nuisance”, they will only be around for a very short time before they also decompose and become part of the remaining mulch layer or soil.
One very common group of organisms seen in mulch and mistaken for fungi are the slime molds. They are not related to fungi, but do develop spores and have a mobile (plasmodium) phase where they can be seen to slowly move from one spot to another. Eventually, when the plasmodial stage is done feeding, the sporangial phase is made and they turn into spores. The most commonly encountered slime mold in mulch beds is the dog barf fungus, a slime mold called Fuligo spetica. Fuligo is dramatic because it can appear overnight and is large (a patch of the sporangium can be several inches across). When kicked, Fuligo bursts into dark spores that will fly up into the air. Slime molds are also saprophytes and live on the decomposing organic matter in mulch. They pose no threat to humans or garden plants.
Fungi in the mulch are a good thing and indicate that moisture, temperature and organic matter are at the correct levels for high microbial activity! This is what creates a healthy soil and ensures healthy garden plantings.
Probably the most contentious gardening topic I deal with online is the native vs. nonnative plant debate. This, unfortunately, is a debate that is more based in emotion than science, and I don’t intend to stir that pot again. We’ve discussed it on this blog before (you can find a list of them here), and I’ve published both a literature review and a fact sheet on the science relevant to tree and shrub selection. What I want to do in this post is compare two research papers, both in peer-reviewed journals, that come up with dramatically different conclusions.
The first has been getting a lot of publicity on the web and in social media. It was published just two days ago, but because of widespread PR prior to release it appears over 37,000 times in a Google search. The title – “Nonnative plants reduce population growth of an insectivorous bird” – and much of the prerelease publicity about the article spells doom and gloom. It’s a message that gets traction.
The second was published a year earlier and is entitled “Native birds exploit leaf-mining moth larvae using a new North American host, non-native Lonicera maackii.” It appears 194 times in a Google search, even though it’s been available for over a year.
The reason I’m singling out these two articles is they have completely different messages – and one of them is not being heard as loudly as the other. The first focuses on a single bird species, the Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) and its diet in urban landscapes. Their conclusion: “…properties landscaped with nonnative plants function as populations sinks for insectivorous birds.” Thus, any gardener who happens to use introduced ornamental plants in their landscape is made to feel guilty for starving their insect-eating birds. (As an aside with my manuscript reviewer hat on – this statement has no business being in an abstract as it overextrapolates the research on one species to include ALL insectivorous birds.)
The second article has a different focus. It reports the feeding of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) on the larvae of a leaf-mining moth (Phyllonorycter emberizaepenella). While leaf miners are common food items for chickadees, the point of this article was to document the host of the leaf-miner – a nonnative and particularly invasive species of honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii).
Chickadees as a group are particularly adept at finding and consuming leaf miners, whose tunnels normally protect them from insectivorous birds. Chickadees move along branches,“examining leaves both above and below them; the chickadees sometimes scanned by hanging upside-down.” This makes it easier to find and extract leaf-miners, as the underside of the leaf is easier to tear open than the surface. And in fact this behavior is reflected among other species of chickadee and leaf-miner: “Similarly, in 15 years of study, Connor et al. (1999) never observed species other than Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) feeding on the larvae of the gracillarid Cameraria hamadryadella [oak leaf miner].” While these are not the same species of leaf miner studied in this paper, the point is that chickadees eat leaf-mining insects. And leaf-miners can obviously adapt to new food sources, including introduced plants. This is basic ecological science.
Neither Craves’s article (the second of these two articles) nor that by Connor et al. (cited within Craves’s article) are cited by Narango et al. (2018 – the first article), even though both are certainly pertinent to the topic. But they don’t fit the narrative – which is that introduced plants are not good food sources for the insects that chickadees eat. So they are left out of the discussion, which by default is now biased – not objective. Not science-based.
And I don’t have a good answer to the obvious question – which is why we continue to demonize noninvasive, introduced plants in the absence of a robust body of evidence supporting that view.
You’ll recall that in July I posted about root-washing perennials before planting them in the middle of our typically hot and dry summer in the Pacific Northwest. I wanted to update everyone on how they performed now that we’re heading into our cooler and wetter fall months.
Just to remind you, here’s a photo of the garden right after planting:
And here is the same garden, 3 months later:
No plants died; in fact, as you can tell, they all thrived. They were watered twice a day during the hottest months and now are rain watered only. (The underlying soil is an excessively drained glacial till, which is why we water frequently during esablishment and why we don’t worry about the drainspout. Water doesn’t stay around long.)
I used no fertilizer. I did add the soilless media from the root washing to the top of the soil and then covered with woodchip mulch.
There was, of course, a period of about 6 weeks post planting where there was no above-ground growth. But all of these plants retained their flowers, which kept our bees and other pollinators (butterflies and hummingbirds) happy. In August, the plants started to put on new growth at a furious rate now that roots have established.
Take some time and go back to the original post (which is linked in the first sentence. Look at the roots – before and after washing and pruning. Now look at the results.
We’ve discussed barerooting/rootwashing trees before, and research on this controversial topic continues. But what about smaller shrubs and woody perennials? What about herbaceous perennials? Basically, what about PERENNIALS???
I’ve always made a practice of rootwashing everything except for annuals. They don’t last long enough to suffer the perils of potbound plants. But many gardeners are nervous about disrupting more fragile root systems. Let’s see what happens when we do.
A little context: we’ve just moved to our family farm, which has AMAZING spring flowers that the bees love. But once those are gone…there’s nothing. I was desperate to provide some food for bees and butterflies, so it was off to the nursery to shell out a few hundred bucks for the beginnings of our south-facing pollinator garden – a previously barren spot left after construction of our porch.
So I bought Lavandula stoechas ‘Bandera Purple’ and ‘Winter Bee’, Salvia ‘Caradonna’, Agastache ‘Acapulco Deluxe Red’ and ‘Blue Boa’, Erysimum ‘Winter Passion’, Verbena ‘Homestead Purple’, and Lobelialaxiflora. I depotted and soaked them in a water bath, using a gentle hose setting to loosen up media in the center. For most of these plants, a massive root disk at the bottom of the pot had to be cut off like a giant slice of salami. If necessary, I “tickled” the remaining rootball to work out the rest of the media.
Here is Erysimum ‘Winter Passion’ potted, depotted, and washed.
The Agastache and Verbena cultivars were also in pretty good shape, much like the Erysimum. Just a gentle washing and tickling was enough to remove all the media and reveal the roots.
Here is Salvia ‘Caradonna’ potted, depotted, and washed, and Lobelialaxiflora potted, depotted, and washed.
Apart from the root Frisbee on the bottom of each pot, the roots were confined to the center of the pot, pretty much where they had been in their previous container. So question number one for all of you gardeners – why would you want to dig a hole to plant all of that media (which is nothing like your soil)? My answer – you don’t! Keep that good organic material as part of your topdressing.
Here is Lavandula stoechas ‘Bandera Purple’ potted, depotted, and washed;
and here is Lavandula stoechas ‘Winter Bee’ potted, depotted, and washed.
I have to take time out for a special rant about the lavenders (retailing at $19.99 and $12.99). Look at the root mass of the ‘Winter Bee’. It’s entirely unacceptable. The woody roots are in the shape of the liner pot from transplants past. News alert: these systems do NOT self-correct. They must be straightened or pruned to regain a natural structure. The ‘Bandera Purple’ – the more expensive of the two – was actually three plants in one color-coordinated bowl (“Go ‘Colour Crazy’ with matching pots and flowers”!). Fine by me – I just got 2 free plants. (By the way, this is nothing new for me – I’ve written about it previously here and here.)
Another upside is that hole digging was short and sweet. Holes were just deep enough to accommodate the root mass and wide enough to allow roots to be spread. Soil was added and watered in. The leftover organic media was used as the first layer of topdressing, followed by a fresh woodchip mulch. And then irrigation to soak the mulch well.
It’s important when you rootwash plants to provide optimal soil water every day, particularly when it’s hot and sunny (as this south-facing garden is). Even with the gentlest root washing there will be a loss of fine roots. But the continuity of the soil system means that the soil around the roots will be just as moist as the rest of the bed. Roots left in soilless media quickly dry out. Yes, I had afternoon wilt on many of the taller plants during the first week or so, but they recovered every evening. The wilt has become less noticeable since then.
So here’s how they look 3 weeks after planting (sunny day, about 80°F). And I’m happy to report that not only birds and butterflies but hummingbirds have been visiting our pollinator oasis garden. And all those single photos scattered through the post? They are all close-ups from this garden – taken just minutes ago.
(Question number two for gardeners – what are you waiting for?)