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 a 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 Books: http://www.sustainablelandscapesandgardens.com

A nifty garden to visit

I missed my regular posting on Wednesday since (1) I’m on vacation and (2) I hadn’t had time to find anything sufficiently worthy of posting.  (Of course I have a compost barrel full of snake oil products I could rant about, but even I get tired of that.  Especially on vacation.)


Note the strategic head placement

But yesterday we visited the Niagara Parks Botanical Gardens just north of Niagara Falls.  We didn’t have nearly enough time to see it all, so I’ll share just one special corner.

The Poison Plant collection isn’t listed on the map, and the only reason I noticed it at first was the giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegassianum), a particularly noxious introduced species, in the center.  Looking closer, I discovered unique signage for these plants.

I think these types of display gardens – poisonous plants, noxious weeds, etc. – are great educational tools.  The trick, of course, is keeping them from setting seed and spreading.  And keeping 15-year-olds out of them.

Friday puzzle solved – better late than never!

I spent yesterday flying from Seattle to Buffalo and didn’t get a chance to post the answer to the puzzle on Friday.  This was an easy one for our readers – the shrub is (was?) a mesquite, and the bushy growth in the photograph is mistletoe (as identified by Bob and seconded by Ginny and Jimbo). 

I am pretty sure this mesquite was dead, as it had been a wet spring and everything was leafing out.  That being said, I didn’t cut into the bark to find out.  If it is dead, that does raise the fascinating question of how the mistletoe can extract water from a dead shrub.  So it’s likely that the mesquite is just slow to leaf out.

This (and other) mistletoes provide food for native birds, and as Jimbo points out they are the perfect dispersal mechanism for the sticky seeds.  There’s a great video of this behavior in the "Secret Life of Plants" by David Attenborough – if you haven’t seen this series, you should.  Amazing.

Thanks, all, for playing – and Peter, your last comment was perfect!

Compost tea…again

My not-fan Justin has emailed me again with some more substantial comments of my criticisms of compost tea.  I’ve posted his email here, along with my responses in a point-counterpoint format:

1.  “Compost teas do vary from batch to batch, the same way galaxies vary.  Without the complexity and biodiversity present in the tea, you might as well just be using water.”

Yes, they do vary, and this is why it is so difficult to conduct replicated and repeatable studies on the efficacy of compost tea.  The comparison to variability in galaxies is really not relevant, nor is it conducive to experimentation.

2.  “Generally speaking though, this can be overcome by the purchase of virtually any microscope capable of achieving 400x field of vision or greater. By looking at what is present in the tea and a little bit of background knowledge, one can make an educated decision as to whether or not it will improve conditions on one’s plants and soil.”

Purchasing a microscope does not overcome variability.  Furthermore, microbial species can’t be reliably identified simply by looking at them under a microscope.  The “little bit of background knowledge” is vague.  What, exactly, will help in making the “educated decision” in whether it will do any good to use it?

3.  “I assume that these steps were not taken in these experiments, because of the generally lacking method in what has been come to be labeled (tobacco science).”

The steps referred to (I assume in point 2) are not useful in assessing efficacy of a product – in other words, demonstrating an effect not seen in the control treatment.  What would be the control?  Not looking under a microscope?  Not having background knowledge?  An experiment requires experimental variables.  I hadn’t heard of  “tobacco science” and had to look it up.  Apparently it’s “science that is skewed or biased, especially toward a particular industry.”  The only industry I see in this discussion is the compost tea industry – and yes, it’s an industry.

4.  “First of all you are trying to disprove compost tea as a foliar pesticide only. You do not do a relatively new science justice by not looking at the wholeness. Any and all foliar applied pesticides are palliative in nature, and symptoms will recur if you do not deal with the source problem. Compost tea (aerated) is to be used in the rhizosphere first, foliage second, and surrounding environment third. If you are not talking about this mode of application, you are not talking about compost tea.”

Compost tea is not a new science.  It is a product.  To demonstrate efficacy of a product requires conducting a controlled experiment in which there are one or a few variables.  It’s not possible for science to look at the “wholeness” of compost tea – it has to be looked at systematically.  Neither is compost tea defined by its mode of application.

I do agree with Justin, however, that symptoms (of disease or whatever) will recur if the underlying problem isn’t addressed.  There are scientifically testable, consistently reliable methods for improving soil health and plant health. At this point, compost tea is not one of them.

5.  “In order to disprove compost tea, you must first explain to the reader how balances of microbial life (bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods, earthworms) are different in various stages of ecological succession. You must describe how the OVERALL HEALTH of any plant depends on how it has evolved to live in the soil conditions in which it is planted. You must describe how human activity effects soil food webs and how soil disturbed or treated with substances toxic to microbial life will move the soil backwards in succession. This will create a soil that favors weeds over crops by reverting the soil to bacterial dominance.”

Disproving any hypothesis (e.g. “compost tea prevents foliar disease) relies upon scientific evidence.  What Justin is asking for is not experimental but explanatory.  (There are several inaccuracies in what he outlines above, but in the interest of sticking to one topic I’m ignoring them.)

6.  “If you are going to debate compost tea you must disprove its ability to create a more fungal soil and inoculate the rhizoshpere with arbuscular mycorrhizae, improving soil born nitrogen. Excuse me, soil born proteins in the form of microbial biomass that are released as ammonium or nitrates in detritus, when consumed by predatory microbes, that are generally found to be lacking in human disturbed soils.”

The first point is incorrect, and is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience – reversed burden of proof.  It is up to proponents of compost tea – or any other product or practice – to demonstrate efficacy.  (Wikipedia has an excellent overview of the characteristics of pseudoscience.)

7.  “You must prove: that most garden or Ag soils have a stable food web, the food web is not necessary, or that compost tea does not create a more complete food web. You must create a fair experiment (not paid for by cargill) that tests foliar applications on crops planted into a healthy rhizosphere with a complete food web.”

No.  Compost tea proponents must demonstrate that compost tea has an effect.  Period.  (It’s also important to understand that science doesn’t “prove” anything.  It either supports a hypothesis or disproves it.  That’s why scientific inquiry is a dynamic process – you never know when new evidence will lead to a paradigm shift.)

8.  “If you cannot present your findings in this way, you are misleading your readers knowingly. I was raised to classify that as a lie.”

I don’t conduct these compost tea experiments (though I do conduct research in other areas).  Part of my job as an extension educator is to read the scientific literature and translate it for use by nonscientists.  I have posted an extensive bibliography of the compost tea literature on my web site.  If I were either deliberately or accidentally misleading anyone, I would be in serious trouble with my university.  Given that I started my criticism of compost tea on my web site over 10 years ago, it’s likely that the information is not misleading.

Fan mail…NOT!

Below is an email I received this morning.  I’ve apparently made Justin really angry.  So as he’s requested, I’m giving him the chance to debate me.

"LISTEN HERE DR. FACE

Who owns you Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott?

You are a cheap mouthpiece and I don’t believe a word that you say. I’d debate you right under the table.
Any day, Lady.

Why don’t you just bring it on sister girl and first describe how vegetation thrived on this planet for millions of years before the phony baloney chemical crap that you use.

Even if your understanding of chemistry and physics is spot on about sprayed on nitrogen being identical to that in nature, it is unsustainable, it leaches, it costs more to the HORTICULTURIST than simple crop rotating methods. These chemicals disrupt the soil FOOD WEB; are you an ecologist? Are you a biologist?

All you are is a tart mouthpiece for the money monsters. This mail probably goes straight to the corporate lawyers that put those ugly lies in your mouth.
Compost can save the world; but you won’t let it, because it won’t pay for your next elective surgery."

So Justin, here’s your chance to air your complaint.  Let me know exactly what I’ve written that you disagree with and I’ll explain my position.  But keep it civil and keep personal comments out of it.

Here’s the plant food everyone is talking about!

Apparently I don’t talk to the right people; I’d never heard of this product until newbie gardener and longtime skeptic John emailed me about Eleanor’s VF-11 plant food.

Upon visiting the website, this is what I learned about VF-11 and roses (the rose aficionado market is apparently a lucrative one for snake oil salesmen):

Point: “VF-11 Plant Food is not a ‘push’ like other fertilizers…think of it as a strength and health builder.”

Counterpoint: It certainly is not a fertilizer. It doesn’t contain enough minerals to do anything for a plant. So why not just use water? There’s something that can work miracles on drought-stressed plants!

Point: “VF-11 builds so much strength and health in your roses that plant cells ‘harden’ and ‘seal in the amino acids’.”

Counterpoint: I will kindly label this as nonsense since this is a G-rated blog. It says nothing but sounds sciency.

Point: “When you’re Foliar Feeding your roses, no need to worry if it blows back into your face. It’s gentle, gentle, gentle and safe.”

Counterpoint: Foliar feeding is an ineffective way of fertilizing plants (you can read more about in a column I wrote some time ago). In short, foliar application of specific nutrients is an excellent way of determining whether a deficiency of that nutrient exists, but it does nothing for the plant on a long-term basis.  I won’t beat that dead horse any longer. And thanks, I’d rather not have stuff blown in my face, regardless of what’s in it.

And more amazing facts elsewhere on the site:

Point: “And you do not need a lot of additives in your soil, like compost etc.”

Counterpoint: Wow. Who knew that organic matter was bad?

Point: “It’s an electrolyte balanced solution.”

Counterpoint: So’s urine. And urine has more nitrogen. (I won’t enter the debate about peeing on your plants.)

Evidence?

For evidence, the site offers two tissues analyses of pistachios that were sprayed with VF-11 (the foliar feeding method). The previous year (no VF-11) the leaves had high levels of copper and low levels of boron and magnesium. After treatment, the copper was reduced and boron and magnesium improved. Since boron and magnesium are not in the product, perhaps the copper was somehow transmuted into boron and magnesium? I can’t think of a more rational explanation if VF-11 is the causative agent. But I can think of lots of reasons this variation might happen from year to year, including the use of copper fungicides and the ability of some nutrients to restrict the uptake of others.

There’s also tissue analyses from a “sick vineyard” taken in June, then repeated in October after foliar application of VF-11. Both potassium and magnesium are singled out for note, though the ratings information is strangely missing (in other words, there’s no notation whether the levels are deficient, sufficient, or excessive). The differences between the %K and %Mg are circled for one sample, though a quick statistical analysis of all 4 samples show no significant differences between dates.  And even if there were – does anyone really expect leaf nutrient levels to be the same in June as in October? Keep in mind that the plant is both producing fruit and preparing for dormancy. Nutrients do move around!

Where did this magical recipe come from?

Again, relying on garden forums for my information (since the product website is vague on the topic), Eleanor “got the formula from a “cantankerous” elderly chemist who grew healthy plants, including tomato plants that were 30 ft. long.”

What’s actually in this miracle product?

According to the Washington State’s fertilizer product database (a really helpful resource for anyone, not just Washington residents), it is 0.15% N, 0.85% P, and 0.55% K (yes, these are all less than 1%). It also contains 3.5 ppm zinc and 3.2 ppm molybdenum. Products with such minute levels of minerals really aren’t fertilizer, but they really aren’t plant food either. Once this is diluted, you are left with…water. This is uncomfortably similar to homeopathic “cell salts,” which are highly diluted mineral products used to prevent disease in humans. Coincidentally, fans of Eleanor’s potions report that VF stands for Verticillium/Fusarium, “signifying that it creates disease resistance”. Hmm.

As Dr. Barrett points out on his QuackWatch site about homeopathic cell salts, “many are so diluted that they could not correct a mineral deficiency even if one were present.” I would venture the same would be true in plants. Again, Eleanor’s aficionados report that the “11” in the name “signifies it has eleven ingredients include iron, boron, copper, zinc, and molybdenum.” Hmm. Washington State’s analysis lab couldn’t find either iron or boron. Or whatever the other 4 minerals might be (besides the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, molybdenum and zinc).

Finally, the most bizarre use of this product must be the one reported by another fan of Eleanor’s: “Eleanor called me this evening and she could hear my parrots in the background…she told me that she, too, has birds. She then went on to explain that a woman told her that her birds looked terrible and that she started to spray them with Eleanor’s VF-11…an amazing improvement in both their plumage and in their attitudes…so, Eleanor did a test with hundreds of birds…and confirmed that spraying your birds often with the same mixture of VF-11 and water…room temperature…would enhance their feathering and make them much happier!

“Eleanor believes that indoor pets miss out on a lot of necessary nutrition due to being indoors….she stated the importance of animals and birds of being exposed to “dew”. I always assumed that dew was just water…but, Eleanor believes it contains nutrients.”

I think I need to stop now.

Morphology quiz answers

As Jason rightly guessed, this is a Schlumbergera species, specifically S. truncata, also known as the Thanksgiving cactus (which has toothed edges as shown). It’s related to the Christmas cactus (S. bridgesii – scalloped edges) and the Easter cactus (S. gaertneri, whose segments are three-sided rather than flattened). [Disclaimer: the nomenclature of this genus and its species is a mess. Even the university websites disagree on whether it’s Schlumbergera, Hatiora, or Rhipsalidopsis. Now you know why I am not a taxonomist.]

On to the more interesting question – those hairs. The green segments you see on these plants are not leaves, but flattened stems, called phylloclades (or cladodes). Phylloclade comes from the Latin word for leaf (phyllo-) and the Greek word for branch (-clade). These leaf-like branches are the primary photosynthetic organs for the plant.

So where, you may ask, are the leaves? That’s what those hairs are! And if you look at your Christmas/Easter/Thanksgiving cactus when it begins to set buds, you’ll see that the buds arise from the leaf axils – that point where the leaf joins the stem. This distinction is why these hairs are, morphologically, the true leaves of the plant.

How to get rid of your lawn

With increasing interest in reducing monocultural swaths of turf, summer water consumption, and the drudgery of mowing, many people are eliminating part or all of their lawns.  We did this at home some years ago and can attest to the tangible benefit of reduced water bills during our dry summer months.

The question I often get is – how? Do you dig up the turf and throw it out, then fill in with topsoil? Or do you cut it, flip it, and then plant on top of it? Or do you cover it up with cardboard to kill it?

We’ve tried all of these methods over the years (except sheet mulch, because you already know what I think about that).  What I now recommend is the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to both remove turf and protect the soil. Here it is in four easy steps:

1) Mow your lawn as close to the ground as possible. Scalp it. If you can wait until it’s not actively growing (summer here in the west), that’s even better. Don’t water it!

2) Cover it up with – yes, you guessed it – a really thick layer of arborist wood chips.  They need to be at least 8″ thick and can be as much as 12-18″ deep without negative effects. They will settle quickly, so you do need to put enough down to maintain a 6-8″ depth after a few weeks. The depth is important to suppress the turf as well as any persistant weeds (like those you can see in the above photo).

3) Wait. Turf decomposition will depend on temperature and water availability – warm and moist conditions are optimal. After 2-4 weeks, pull part of the mulch back and check out what’s underneath. When it’s easy enough to dig through, then you can…

4) Plant. Be sure to move the mulch aside and plant into the soil. Replace the mulch to cover the disturbed soil and keep the weeds down. It only needs to be 3-4″ deep at this point.

It’s that easy.