Category: Uncategorized

As part of my ‘other duties as assigned’, I have taken on an assignment to develop fertilizer prescriptions for landscape trees and shrubs based on soil samples submitted by homeowners to the MSU soils lab.  This has gotten me immersed in two sets of conflicting literature. 

On one hand is a raft of extension bulletins and ISA guidelines on tree fertilization, which typically suggest adding 2-4 lbs of nitrogen (N) per 1,000 sq ft of ground area – in some cases up to 6 lbs of N per 1,000 sq ft (Rose 1999).  To put that last number in perspective, that works out to 262 lbs of N per acre.  A typical recommendation for corn in Ohio is 150 lbs of N per acre.  Landscape trees need more fertilizer than a field of corn?

On the other side are numerous landscape studies, and even some nursery field studies, that suggest landscape trees simply don’t respond to fertilization (Day and Harris, 2007; Ferrini and Baietto, 2006; Harris et al., 2008; Robbins, 2006; Werner and Jull, 2009). 

So, what gives?  I mean, we know trees need nitrogen to make proteins, enzymes, chlorophyll, and all that good stuff.  We rake up leaves and haul them away each fall; short circuiting the natural nutrient cycle.  Urban trees should be starving for nutrients and begging to be fed, yet don’t grow any better when we fertilize them?  There are likely several factors at work.  First, many of the widely circulated recommendations are based, at least in part, on rates that might be applied in production forestry or nurseries where maximizing growth is a primary objective.  Also, as Dan Struve (2002) noted in his review, some recommendations were based on poorly designed studies.   Or, as Dan Herms (2002) hypothesized, trees may be allocating more resources to defensive compounds. 

Another answer may be found in some of the papers cited above.  In many cases, foliar N levels of the control (unfertilized) trees were already in sufficiency ranges.  In other words, even without fertilizer the trees had enough nutrients.  Part of this is a recent emphasis on the question of fertilizing at transplanting.  Trees coming in from a nursery are likely to be pretty jacked up with fertilizer – often referred to as a ‘nutrient loading’ effect.  Trees can be pretty efficient at internal nutrient re-cycling, so this effect can persist for a few years after transplanting. 

So where does all this leave me on my homeowner recommendation?  For some elements, like potassium and phosphorus, we can base a recommendation on the standard soil test included in the program.  Unfortunately there is no simple indicator of soil N availability (see Scharenbroch and Lloyd (2004) for a thorough discussion).  Foliar samples would be the best bet but aren’t part of our testing program.  At this point, I’m leaning toward a simple visual assessment – Do the trees/shrubs look healthy and have acceptable color? (check yes/no).  If ‘yes’, don’t fertilize.  If ‘no’ add 1-2 lbs N/ 1000 sq ft.

Your thoughts?   

References

Day and Harris. 2007. Arboric. and Urban Forestry 33:113-121.

Ferrini and Baietto. 2006. Arboric. and Urban Forestry 32:93-99.

Harris et al. 2008. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7(3): 195-206.

Herms. 2002. Environ. Entomology 31:923-933.

Robbins. 2006. So. Nursery Assoc. Proc. 51:113-117.

Rose. 1999. HortTechnology 9(4):613-617.

Scharenbroch and Lloyd. 2004. J. of Arboric. 30:214-229.

Struve. 2002. J. of Arboric. 20:252-263.

Werner and Jull. 2009. Arboric. and Urban Forestry 35:252-262.

A follow-up to Linda’s post about a recent study in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry that indicated mulch may not reduce evaporation of water from soil as we generally assume and which suggested that landscapers may want to re-evaluate their mulching practices.  As Linda noted, we have some real concerns about this conclusion and believe that proper mulching of landscape trees and shrubs has well-established benefits.

First, I don’t question the results present in AUF article.  As my grad students frequently hear me say, the data are the data.  But we need to bear in mind the paper is looking at one aspect of one of the impacts of mulching.  As Linda notes there are plenty of data to suggest that mulching does conserve soil moisture and she included some data from one of my studies which demonstrated this.  But there are other benefits to mulching beyond improving soil moisture.  I’d like to mention two here; one is a practical observation, the other is based on data from another study.

Preventing lawn mower blight and string trimmer trauma
From my observations and experience, one of the biggest and perhaps least appreciated benefits of mulch is keeping mowers and weed whips at bay.  I’m not aware of specific data, but damage by trimmers and mowers has to be near the top of the list of causes of mortality and long-term damage of new landscape trees.  A mulched zone around trees provides a buffer and simplifies maintenance operations. It’s an easy, simple and effective way to eliminate a major cause of tree distress.  A no-brainer.

Young, thin bark is no match for mowers and trimmers

Mulch protects trees and simplifies maintenance operations

Reduced soil temperatures
We conducted a trial a few years ago to look at the impacts of plastic mulches to improve establishment and early growth of Christmas trees. http://www.hrt.msu.edu/assets/PagePDFs/bert-cregg/cregg-et-al-2009.pdf  In a bit of serendipity we added a treatment at the last minute because our research station had some leftover wood chips from another project.  The trees mulched with wood chips were not irrigated but grew almost as much as trees in the plots that were irrigated.  What was especially impressive was the insulating effects of the wood chip mulch.  We installed probes to measure soil temperature 2” below the soil surface that we logged continuously.  During a July heat wave we found that soil temperatures were up to 10^oC (18^oF) cooler on the wood chip mulch plots than on the bare-ground plots.  Reducing soil heat load has profound implications for reducing root respiration and improving overall root function.

Soil temperatures were continuously logged on bare ground plots (foreground) and plots with wood chip mulch (background)

Soil temps peaked at around 38C (100 F) on bare ground without mulch (green dots);  max. soil temps were about 28C (82F) with wood chips (purple squares).

As Linda noted in her comprehensive review article, mulching has a myriad of benefits for landscape trees and shrubs.  It is important that we continue to look at all the various aspects of mulching and understand how to maximize the benefits (or reduce negative impacts) of mulching but in doing so it’s important to not lose site of the bigger picture.  While individual studies may yield conflicting data, on the whole, the preponderance of evidence and practical considerations come down strongly in favor of mulching

I’m no global warming apologist.  I do think it’s happening.  I think the new USDA map supports that it’s happening.  I also think that humans probably have something to do with it since we cut trees and burn fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into our atmosphere.  That said, I’m not convinced that the carbon dioxide produced by people is as big a player in global warming as we’re being led to believe, or that the world is about to become a living hell because of it.  Still, I don’t know if I’m on board with this article published in the Wall Street Journal last week.  Sixteen scientists with diverse backgrounds basically encouraging us to ignore carbon dioxide emissions for awhile. 

Look, even if global warming is a red herring, carbon dioxide isn’t the wonderful universal fertilizer claimed by this article.  Increased carbon dioxide does encourage the growth of some plants, others don’t benefit as much, meaning that some weeds will become more competitive with crops as carbon dioxide levels increase.  These crops include such things as rice and corn.  Furthermore, increased carbon dioxide means that more nutrients will need to be pulled from the soil by plants which are trying to grow faster — kinda like how you need more gas (nutrients) for a faster car (faster growing plant).  So that’ll mean more fertilizer used for crops, which will be used at about 30% efficiency (about 70% of what we apply to crops never gets to them) and the rest will go into the air or into the water as pollutants. 

To me, the carbon dioxide issue isn’t, and never was, about global warming — because we can’t prove how much it does to climate change.  The issue is crops and ocean acidification (which I haven’t gone into here) because we have very good data in these areas as they relate to the negative effects of increased carbon dioxide levels.  We need to rethink our fossil fuel use.

Lots of people around the country seemed to take perverse pleasure in the snow and ice storm that paralyzed much of the Pacific Northwest recently.  From Boulder to Boston, northern residents that deal with snowstorms on a regular basis chortled at video clips of cars and buses slip-sliding away in western Washington.  Perhaps it’s just the Northwesterner in me getting a little defensive, but I’ve never understood why people feel the need to gloat over other people’s inability to cope with weather.  At the end of the day we’re all in the same boat.

I’ve lived in the Northwest, the Plains, the South and the Midwest.  And guess what?  Nobody can handle weather they’re not used to or equipped for.  On NPR the other day I heard a former Chicago resident now living in Seattle bragging how his former city dealt with snow and couldn’t understand why everyone was making such a big deal about a little snow.  I used to live in Georgia and people there were similarly perplexed when a few days of 100 degree heat killed hundreds of people in Chicago.  Likewise, I can remember my amazement shortly after I moved to Michigan and saw a scroll at the bottom of the morning TV news announcing 2-hour school delays for fog.  I’d never heard of such a thing.  If we had fog delays in Olympia, we’d have started half our school days at 10:30.

On the eve of the recent Northwest snowstorm I saw an interview on the Weather Channel with Seattle’s transportation manager, who said they had 30 snow plows standing by.  Custer had better odds.  To put things in perspective it would be like the city of Lansing having 6 plows (it has more than 60).  Seattle and western Washington are not equipped for snow, nor does it make any financial sense for them to do so.  Just like it doesn’t make sense for everyone in the Midwest to have central air or to equip every Michigan school bus with fog lamps.  Just remember, when you get ready to gloat over someone else’s weather misfortune, Mother Nature will always have the last laugh. 

I probably shouldn’t admit this but one of my all-time favorite movies is Steve Martin’s classic “The Jerk”.  Part of the appeal is that I have an affinity for low-brow humor in general but also because the movie contains some great lines; “I was born a poor black child”, and the classic scene when Martin’s character finds his name in the phonebook for the first time and runs around yelling, “The new phonebook’s here! The new phonebook’s here!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOTDn2A7hcY

I wasn’t quite as excited as Navin R. Johnson today, but pretty darn close.  The reason? The USDA (finally) released a new hardiness zone map for the US.  http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/
Why is this exciting news?  Well, for several reasons.  The earlier version of the USDA map was released 1990.  The 22-year-old map had several limitations.  First, it was 22 years old.  Secondly, the versions of the map that were available electronically did not reproduce well and had poor resolution when you tried to zoom in on a particular area.  This sometimes made it difficult to identify the hardiness zone for certain locations and limited the utility of the map for presentations and publications. 

There have been persistent rumors for last 6 or 7 years that the USDA would release a better, updated map.  In addition to the shortcomings of the old map in terms of resolution, many felt the map didn’t accurately reflect more recent climatic conditions.  In 2006 the National Arbor Day Foundation released an updated hardiness map using more current climatic data.  This map indicated that many locations were 1 or even 2 hardiness zones warmer than the 1990 USDA map.  In addition, the Arbor Day map was available as a hi-res TIF file suitable for PowerPoint presentations and had a ‘zone-finder’ feature based on zip codes.

I haven’t had a lot of time to work with the new USDA map, but my initial reaction is a thumb’s up.  Like the Arbor Day map, the new USDA map has a zone finder based on zip code that makes it easy to find the zone in your area. The map is interactive, allowing users to zoom in or out.  As with MapQuest and other on-line maps we’ve grown accustomed to, it allows the user to select a roadmap or satellite background and choose different levels of transparency or opacity.

Whenever I discuss hardiness zones, I always include the caveat that these maps are based on average annual minimum temperatures.  That is, they are based low temperatures we are likely to see in an average year.  Not sure about where you live, but I have yet to see an average year in my adult life.  There are many years when we will get below our USDA hardiness zone temperature.  Human nature says we want what we can’t have and gardeners love to push the boundaries of their hardiness zone – people in zone 4 love to grow zone 5 plants; people in zone 5 love to grow zone 6 and so on.  Just because the new map may say you’re a zone warmer; your climate hasn’t changed, the map is just based on better and more recent data.

Last week I was in Connecticut speaking to the Connecticut Tree Protective Assocation.  It was a great chance to meet arborists on the east coast, and especially heartening to meet yet another group of professionals who demand good science-based information to guide their practices.

After this meeting, I had a thoughtful email from one of the attendees regarding the lack of "negative results" publications in the scientific literature.  It’s a message that’s important for academics as well as the gardening public.  Here’s Henry’s email:

"Thank you for the comments and presentations you delivered on Thursday, January 19. I hope you had a pleasant and less difficult return journey from Connecticut.

"One point that you mentioned bears emphasis and enlargement although you got it right the first time. Specifically, you mentioned one anecdote that has additional implications, the researcher friend who was reluctant to publish findings that disappointed her because they did not bear out her original conclusions, i.e., the feeling of disappointment and the chagrin to have missed one’s own best guess. These are natural feelings and you are not the first in my experience to notice this very human inclination in scientific researchers. There is a rush to publish meaningful results, but the negative findings tend to pile up in the stack of unpublished material.

"The root of this matter, it seems, lies in the unwritten assumption that science is the means by which we discern and expose the truth. Certainly that’s what is hoped since it could lead to recognition and prestige.

"In fact, it is just as useful, if not more useful, to disclose that which is not true. The beneficiary is science itself and not the individual. Systematically done, this will eventually result in the elimination of errors of fact or judgment and prevent the repetition of similar investigations that for similar reasons might remain unpublished. Viewed in this manner, a failure is as valuable as a success and therefore just as deserving of publication as the most insightful of findings. Failures often precede success.

"Thanks again for your informative presentation. As a former horticultural extension agent, I understand just where you are coming from."

Sincerely,
Henry A. F. Young, President
Young Environmental Sciences, Inc.

Like many, I was interested last week by the announcement that a University of Connecticut professor responsible for some of the research on resveratrol, a plant-based phenolic compound linked to various health benefits, had been accused of falsifying and fabricating data.  According to published reports, UConn officials found 145 cases of faked data that turned up in 26 published research articles by Dr. Depak Das.  Resveratrol occurs in many plants but most notably in grape skins and seeds, and one of the compounds associated with health benefits of red wine.   

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57357720-10391704/red-wine-researcher-dr-dipak-k-das-published-fake-data-uconn/

Needless to say, reports of Dr. Das’s wrongdoing were disappointing to those of us that enjoy an occasional glass of Caberbet Sauvignon or Merlot.  More importantly, although Dr. Das’s research was a relatively minor part of the resveratrol story, these types of reports invariably provide grist for the mill for those that like to question the motives and veracity of scientists.  Only Dr. Das can ultimately comment on his motivation for the con job.  Dr. Das is a tenured professor and head of his university’s Cardiovascular Research Center so presumably career advancement was not a primary factor in the ruse.

In theory, a well designed and well executed study that provides useful results should be publishable.  In reality, the adage that ‘it’s difficult to publish negative results’ often proves true.  I’m not familiar with Dr. Das’s studies or the data he’s reported to have faked, but suppose, for example, he had found that resveratrol did not reduce heart attack risk.  Assuming the trials were experimentally valid, there is still value in that knowledge; it could save others from conducting expensive but likely fruitless research or it may suggest other avenues of research.   Unfortunately, it’s often easier to publish positive results and use those data as the basis for future grant development.  I’m not privy to all the details at this juncture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this started off as fudging a few numbers, which, in turn, formed the basis for other proposals and started a self perpetuating cycle.

As I noted, Dr. Das is an established scientist near the top of his game.  But the need to keep science clean extends to all levels.  In some regards, the pressure to fudge data is greatest at the entry level.  At research intensive universities, young assistant professors must generate enough grant funding and publications to secure tenure within six years of their hire.  Denial of tenure means time to hit the road.  Many universities are even opting to not reappoint some new faculty at the three-year mid-point review, which was often perceived as a ‘rubber stamp’ in the past.

Falsifying data in science is analogous to gambling in sports.  Both represent the ‘third rail’.  People wonder why baseball came down so hard on Pete Rose.  Once gambling is introduced in sports, fans assume the outcome is predetermined and the sport is done.  Likewise, science runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if the public assumes that researchers are only going to conclude whatever will get them published or help them land the next grant.  It sounds like UConn and the US Office of Research Integrity are preparing to throw the book at Dr. Das.  If he’s guilty as charged, they have to.

Ray Eckhart, Master Gardener and loyal blog reader, wrote a long response to Alan’s request for research for the ongoing debate on Canada thistle started a few weeks ago by Jeff. Because he has a lot of links to research in his response, I thought it should have its own posting. So here’s Ray:

Here is a brief summary of the results of a google search of .edu and .gov or .us sites on the subject of Canada thistle or Cirsium arvense as a noxious weed, examining the “whys” by a mostly volunteer* Master Gardener reliant on published literature by reputable sources and charged with fulfilling the Land Grant University charter to bring science based information to the local level.

(* about $6500 of my annual salary and benefits comes from fulfilling Master Gardener responsibilities.)

From the Minnesota pdf referenced above:
“Noxious weeds are difficult to control and injurious to public health, the environment, roads, crops, livestock and property. By law, these weeds must be controlled on all public and private lands.”

From Montana:
“Canada thistle threatens productivity in both crop and non-croplands. In cropland, Canada thistle causes extensive yield losses through competition for light, nutrients, and moisture. It also increases harvesting problems due to seed and forage contamination. In Montana, it is estimated that two shoots per square yard can reduce wheat yield by 15 percent and 25 shoots per square yard can reduce wheat yield by 60 percent. Other Montana crops seriously threatened by Canada thistle include peas, corn, beans, alfalfa and sugar beets. Heavy infestations are also commonly found in overgrazed pastures and ranges and may crowd-out and replace native grasses and forbs, decreasing species diversity in an area.

“By 1795, Vermont enacted noxious weed legislation against Canada thistle and, in the early 1900’s, the currently named Noxious Weed Act gave a person the right to eradicate this species wherever they found it without fear of trespassing.

“In alfalfa stands grown for seed production, Canada thistle can reduce yield by 48 percent. An extra ten percent yield reduction can occur in alfalfa seed production due to seed cleaning. In pastures, Canada thistle reduces productivity by crowding out forage species with spiny leaves that deter cattle from grazing. In non-cropland ecosystems, Canada thistle can crowd out and replace native grasses and forbs limiting land’s recreational use. In gardens, flower beds, and lawns, Canada thistle’s extensive root system makes it a hassle to control. Mowing or pulling this weed is not effective because it grows again from vegetative buds on the roots. In fact, improper cultivation can even worsen Canada thistle problems!”

From Pennsylvania:
“In the Northeast, several weeds including bull and musk thistle, Canada thistle, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum), and garlic mustard (Allaria petifolia) are receiving attention [for biological control efforts – ed.] because of their invasive nature.”

2nd Cite for Pennsylvania:
ECOLOGICAL THREAT: Natural communities that are threatened by Canada thistle include non-forested plant communities such as prairies, barrens, savannas, glades, sand dunes, fields and meadows that have been impacted by disturbance. As it establishes itself in an area, Canada thistle crowds out and replaces native plants, changes the structure and species composition of natural plant communities and reduces plant and animal diversity. This highly invasive thistle prevents the coexistence of other plant species through shading, competition for soil resources and possibly through the release of chemical toxins poisonous to other plants.

“Canada thistle is declared a “noxious weed” throughout the U.S. and has long been recognized as a major agricultural pest, costing tens of millions of dollars in direct crop losses annually and additional millions costs for control. Only recently have the harmful impacts of Canada thistle to native species and natural ecosystems received notable attention.”

Idaho:
“Some noxious or invasive weeds are highly toxic to equines, however, and can cause tremendous problems if allowed to invade horse pastures. This may be partially due to the extensive taproot in many broadleaf weeds that allow them to remain green longer into the dry season, thereby appearing potentially attractive to horses grazing in poor pastures. This list includes tansy ragwort, yellow starthistle, Russian knapweed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), poison hemlocks, field bindweed, houndstongue, Scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius), horsetails, leafy spurge, black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), Klamath weed or St. Johnswort, kochia, yellow toadflax or butter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris), silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), and puncture vine.”

Colorado: “Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is an aggressive, creeping perennial weed that infests crops, pastures, rangeland, roadsides and noncrop areas. Generally, infestations start on disturbed ground, including ditch banks, overgrazed pastures, tilled fields or abandoned sites. Canada thistle reduces forage consumption in pastures and rangeland because cattle typically will not graze near infestations. In 2002, the Colorado Department of Agriculture surveyed counties and while incomplete, the results showed more than 100,000 acres infested with Canada thistle (Figure 1).”

2nd cite Colorado:
“Impacts Agricultural: Canada thistle is an aggressive, creeping, perennial weed. It infests crops, pastures, rangelands, roadsides, and riparian areas (Beck 1996).

“Ecological: Canada thistle spreads rapidly through horizontal roots, which give rise to shoots (Moore 1975). Its root system can be extensive, growing horizontally as much as 18 feet in one season (Nuzzo 1998). Most Canada thistle patches spread at a rate of 3-6 feet/year, crowding out more desirable species and creating thistle monocultures.

“Human: Spiny thickets of Canada thistle can restrict recreational access to infested areas.”

South Dakota:
“Noxious weeds are found in range and pasture as well as noncrop areas and cropland. Troublesome statewide noxious weeds like Canada thistle, leafy spurge, perennial sow thistle, Russian knapweed, and hoary cress can be serious problems in pasture and rangeland.”

Kentucky:
“Weeds can reduce the quantity and the stand life of desirable forage plants in pastures and hayfields. These unwanted plants are often more aggressive than existing or desired forage species and compete for light, water, and nutrients. Weeds can also diminish the quality and palatability of the forage available for livestock grazing, and certain weed species are potentially poisonous to grazing animals. The aesthetic value of a pasture is also impacted by weeds.

“The state regulations of the Kentucky Seed Law classify certain plants such as Canada thistle, johnsongrass, and quackgrass as noxious weeds and prohibit their presence in commercial seed sold in Kentucky.”

National Park Service:
“Thistles are pioneer species and are most often found in sites where the ground cover has been disturbed by grazing, erosion, traffic, or other means. Thistles reduce the use of an area for grazing or recreational purposes because of the prominent spines on leaves, stalks, and blooms. Livestock do not eat thistles and will not graze between thistle plants on more desirable forage (Batra 1982).”

Invasive.org (linked from .gov sites):
“THREATS POSED BY THIS SPECIES: Natural areas invaded by Cirsium arvense include prairies and other grasslands in the midwest and Great Plains and riparian areas in the intermountain west. Cirsium arvense threatens natural communities by directly competing with and displacing native vegetation, decreasing species diversity, and changing the structure and composition of some habitats. Species diversity in an “undisturbed” Colorado grassland was inversely proportional to the relative frequency of Canada thistle (Stachion and Zimdahl 1980). Canada thistle invades natural communities primarily through vegetative expansion, and secondarily through seedling establishment. Cirsium arvense presents an economic threat to farmers and ranchers. Infestations reduce crop yield through competition for water, nutrients and minerals (Malicki and Berbeciowa 1986) and interfere with harvest (Boldt 1981). In Canada, the major impact of Cirsium arvense is in agricultural land, and in natural areas that have been disturbed or are undergoing restoration (White et al. 1993). In the U.S., it is a host for bean aphid and stalk borer, insects that affect corn and tomatoes (Moore 1975), and for sod-web worm (Crampus sp.) which damages corn (Detmers 1927). In Bulgaria Cirsium arvense is a host for the cucumber mosaic virus (Dikova 1989). In addition to reducing forage and pasture production, Canada thistle may scratch grazing animals, resulting in small infections (Moore 1975).”

Washington State:
“Why is it a noxious weed? Once established, it spreads quickly replacing native plants. It grows in circular patches, spreading vegetatively through roots which can spread 10 -12′ in one season. It poses an economic threat to the agriculture industry by reducing crop yields.”

Virginia:
“Threats: Canada thistle’s rapid growth aggressively competes with native plants and crops for nutrients, moisture and light. It releases chemicals toxic to other plants. The result is a loss of natural diversity. It is known to harbor other pest species, e.g., insects, and has long been recognized as an agricultural est. Both natural and human caused disturbances can create the opportunity for Canada thistle to become established in natural communities.”

Ohio:
“PROBLEM: The extensive root system of Canada thistle allows it to out-compete and displace many native species, especially in degraded prairies where native species are not well established. Spreading both by seed and rhizome, Canada thistle can create monocultures covering large areas. The wind-dispersed seeds may remain viable for 20 years or more, allowing it to spread quickly and making it difficult to eradicate.”

There are more, but I stopped on page 3 of the 120 page result of the google .edu search. I’ll leave it to others more qualified than I am to further debate the relative merits of why or why not a more cavalier (heh!) approach other than current government regulatory action is or is not warranted.

Last Monday a friend of mine stopped by the office and dropped off a couple of plant "kits" for my kids.  I didn’t spend much time looking at them at first, but I brought them out that night when I got home to show to the family and…they’re really neat!  Called Eco Plant Pals, these little kits include a container, some media, and some seeds for one of 18 different plants.  Each of these plants has their own names, like Chris Catnip for (you guessed it) a catnip plant and Laura Lobelia.  It’s all about the marketing with cute pictures and names.  See all of the cute kits here.

 I’ll tell you right from the start that they cost too much (retail anyway), but they’re cute, and the girls are excited to plant them, so what can I say?  I believe that anything that gets kids excited about planting is a good thing.  Everything in the kit is biodegradable which is nice.  I do have one complaint though.  Not a huge one, but one worth mentioning all the same.  Plant number 18 is Butterfly Beth and it’s a butterfly bush.  As many of you know I absolutely love butterfly bush, but I am also aware that in certain parts of the country this shrub is considered an invasive plant.  While all of the other plants are, as far as I can tell, pretty benign (most are annuals — there is a Robert Redwood though!) I have to question calling Butterfly Beth a good choice ecologically.

Yes, she’s an invasive, but isn’t she cute!

Just a quick post today.  Today is the second Monday in January which means: 1) classes resume here at MSU and 2) it’s the first day of the Great lakes Trade EXPO in Grand Rapids, which is sponsored by the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association and Michigan Turf Foundation.  I’m on tap for two presentations this afternoon.  

The first one is a bit of post-mortem on the Imprelis issue that dominated some of our lives back in the summer.  My talk, "Imprelis: What went wrong?’ looks back over the development of the Imprelis debacle.  The final verdict on how the EPA allowed the registration on an herbicide with such devastating non-target effects probably won’t be fully known until the dust settles on the legal process. Bottom line: the testing that was done was not adequate and either DuPont or the EPA (or both) dropped the ball.

My second talk, thankfully, is a little more upbeat.  In "Little Big Men" I discuss the use of miniature and dwarf conifers for landscaping.  I even get to talk about one of my new interests: railway gardening.  I haven’t taken the plunge yet – not enough time or nearly enough money – but I think I may have found a hobby for retirement.  For those that have access to the Oregon Association of Nurseries Digger magazine, Elizabeth Peterson wrote a very nice feature on railway gardens in their September issue.
 
Courtesy: Elizabeth Peterson
</d