Uncategorized – Page 44 – The Garden Professors™

Bambara

This past summer I had the chance to talk with an old friend of mine, Hamado Tapsoba, who I hadn’t seen in 15 years. We had gone to graduate school together, but after graduation he headed back to Burkina Faso, and I headed up to Minnesota. Anyway, while we were talking I told him that we were growing peanuts at the University (yes, I tell everybody — peanut news needs to be shared!). When I told him some of the problems that we had with shorter seasons he asked why we weren’t growing Bambara groundnuts. The answer was that I didn’t know what the heck Bambara groundnuts were. Well, it turns out that these nuts are native to Western Africa and grow under the surface of the soil just like peanuts. The reason Hamado recommended them to me was that they can have a growing cycle shorter than peanuts. They can also be cooked like peanuts and have a flavor somewhat similar to chickpeas (or so I’m told). I’ve had an incredible amount of difficulty finding Bambara in the US though I know that at one time they were grown here. We have found a researcher in Burkina Faso who is willing to work with us, but that will probably take some time to get going. Does anyone out there know about Bambara? Especially where to buy plants or seed?) It sounds like an exciting plant to work with.

Just for ewe: An alternative approach to weed control.

As I mentioned in the last post I was in Austria this past week for the International Christmas Tree Research and Extension conference. We hold these meetings every two years for Christmas tree researchers in Europe and North America to get together and share the latest research on various aspects of Christmas tree production and marketing. In addition to research presentations the programs also include tours of local Christmas tree farms, which is always the most interesting part of the conference.

In Austria one of our tour stops was an organic Christmas tree farm operated by Regina and Michael Spenger. For the most part, my views on organic systems are in line with those that Jeff Gilman has voiced here on the GP blog. There are certainly benefits in reducing pesticide use but it’s not a given that an organic approach is always superior to a conventional system. Nevertheless one hallmark of organic production is that growers must be creative and often develop innovative approaches to production issues. This is especially true when it comes to weed control; one of the most difficult challenges of organic growing. Good weed control is essential in Christmas tree production since grasses and broadleaved weeds are aggressive competitors for water, nutrients and light. To control weeds without herbicides the Spenger’s settled on a novel idea: Sheep. Each morning they release a herd of 40 Shropshire sheep into a plantation and let them munch away. The sheep are allowed to graze for a week and then rotated into another field. Shropshires are well suited to the job since they graze readily on the grass and forbs but leave the trees alone. The Spenger’s also get some small additional returns by selling a few lambs each spring as well as some wool. Obviously this approach has limitations but it certainly highlights important aspect of the organic movement that can benefit all production systems: looking at problems in a different way and thinking creatively.

The sheep herd heading out to a plantation to start their day’s work…

To say that sheep grazing in an Austrian plantation creates an idyllic scene is an understatement.

Marketing naturally grown Christmas trees.

</d

If it’s Monday this must be Austria…

Just a quick post from on the road. My family and I have been traveling through Europe the past week and a half. A bit of a whorl-wind trip combining some vacation and work travel. We started off a week and half ago, flying into Frankfurt. We rented a car and drove to Paris where we spent a couple of days sightseeing. Then it was off to southern France to visit friends that run a bed and breakfast there. This weekend we drove from France to lower Austria where I am attending our biennial International Christmas tree Research and Extension conference. I’ll have a few bits to report from the meeting later but for now I’ll just close with a few random acts of Horticulture from France.

Trees shaped like boxes…

Trees in boxes…

Horsechestnuts. Europe is big on horsechestnuts. Unfortunately most of them are scorched to a crisp and look like crap.

Pollarding. Europe is big on pollarding. Occasionally it’s done well and creates some neat effects. More often, like here, it’s done poorly and just makes a mess.

A green wall. Green roofs and green walls can help to reduce urban heat island effect. This green wall is mainly for show, I think. It’s made up of ferns and other mesic plants and requires constant mist irrigation. Not exactly a sustainable system, but it is dramatic and certainly commands attention.

</d

Toxic mulch: When shredded bark goes bad

We typically think of mulching landscape beds as a good thing. And it usually is; helping to conserve soil moisture, reducing soil temperatures and contributing to soil organic matter. Recently, however, I received an e-mail from a local landscaper that reported severe damage to annuals and perennials in a landscape bed immediately after applying hardwood mulch. The problem, sometimes referred to as ‘sour mulch’ or ‘toxic mulch’, occurs when mulch is left is large piles and undergoes anaerobic conditions. This results in the production of acids and other compounds that can volatilize when the mulch is placed in beds, especially during hot weather. These vapors can quickly damage annuals and other sensitive plants. Mulch in this condition is often characterized by a ‘sour’ smell. If you suspect your mulch has gone sour, spread it out before use to allow toxins to dissipate and water thoroughly either before or immediately after application. The University of Arkansas Extension has a nice fact sheet in the subject “Plant injury from ‘sour’ wood mulch.http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-6138.pdf

Fried Gerber daisy

Sedums are usually pretty tough…

And, yes, I did steal the title of this post from one of my all-time favorite ‘Far Sides’…

This Bud’s for you…

Ask the risk of honing in on Jeff’s turf, I thought I’d pass along this article by former University of Maine associate dean (and apparent Garden Professor wannabe) Katheryn Olmstead. It seems that Dr. Olmstead’s painstaking research has documented a preference among slugs for domestic beers, particularly Budweiser. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/07/21/living/garden-slugs-prefer-budweiser-over-foreign-brands/ Like most undergraduate students, it seems slugs prefer domestic swill to more refined imported brews; confirming many suspicions about both slugs and undergrads. Although we’ll have to wait for the full peer-reviewed article, her scientific method seems sound, including use of replicated plots. That said, her admitted qualms about being seen purchasing two six-packs in the same week raises doubts about Dr. Olmstead’s eventual rise to the rank of full Garden Professor

A Garden Professor is most severely vexed

I’ve been thinking a lot about Jeff’s recent post on “What happens to the horticulturist.” It’s true – universities rely more and more on faculty-generated grants for funding, so new hires tend to be in “hot” areas of research. Fewer horticultural generalists are hired in teaching/research positions, and the same is true for Extension – the educational outreach arm of land-grant universities.

Many of you might not even know what Extension really is. In my opinion, that’s because Extension as a whole has done a pretty poor job of evolving with the times. When small farms were the mainstay of life for many people, farmers relied on practical, science-based information provided by university Extension services. We’ve become an increasingly urbanized society, but Extension just hasn’t kept up. The bulk of the research and information coming from plant and soil science departments is still geared towards production agriculture. It’s of little immediate use for the majority of us living in urban areas.

So we have an imbalance: there are increasing numbers of people living in urban areas who want good information on home gardens and landscaping, and decreasing university resources to fill those gaps. Nature hates a vacuum, and this information gap is quickly filled with all kinds of stuff: some good, some bad, some dangerous, some illegal. The very worst offenders, in my opinion, are the fear mongererss with most definite agendas but no solid evidence to support their claims. For instance: I’m always skeptical when I hear about an article in an “obscure journal” being the only source of new information. If there was something new out there on an important topic, the researchers would not be publishing in an “obscure” journal. It would be in a highly visible and highly regarded scientific journal. In any case, the information would be easy to find and discuss, not hidden away in a secret location.

I don’t have a good way to end this post, because I don’t have an easy answer to the problems that both Jeff and I see in horticulture departments and in Extension. Do you?

Spin Cycle

The issue of potential damage to conifers by the turf herbicide Imprelis continues to get a lot of air play in this neck of the woods. One of the interesting things about watching an emerging story such as this is watching some of the sideshows that go on around it and how people spin the issue to match their needs and agenda.

Example 1:

Heritage Lawn Care Company put out flyers in neighborhoods in southeast Michigan with affected trees to promote their service. The flyer incldued the heading “ALERT:DYING PINE AND SPURCE [sic] TREES” The flyer claimed that issues related to Imprelis damage to trees are “99.9% applicator and mixing errors”. Surprisingly, there was no mention of where they got the data for this assertion. But fortunately Heritage stands ready to save the day by using “only organic based fertilizers giving the same or better results”. Again, no mention of how organic fertilizer controls tough weeds like ground ivy and wild violet. Thankfully, “If you prepaid (your lawn care provider) for 2011, and want to switch companies, Hertitage is willing to extend you credit until your current company refunds your money.” Call it a hunch, but I don’t think the folks at Heritage will be receiving an invitation to the local landscaper’s group picnic this year…

Example 2:

Mother Earth News trumpeted the news on Imprelis with the headline “Imprelis: Another Deadly Herbicide, This Time From DuPont” http://www.motherearthnews.com/grow-it/imprelis-killer-compost-zb0z11zrog.aspx First of all, isn’t ‘Deadly Herbicide’ redundant? Every ‘icide’ is designed to kill something so I think they’re supposed to be deadly, at least on their target. While the unintended damage to spruces and pines is certainly unsettling, especially for a newly released product, this group of herbicides has low toxicity to mammals and in many regards is comparatively safe. I don’t consider myself a nozzlehead but I’m sure most GP readers recognize I have little aversion to judicious use of chemicals around Daisy Hill farm. So I was a little taken aback to find my “Fasten your seatbelt folks, this could be a bumpy ride” (GP Blog 6/27/11) quoted in Mother Earth news. My reference was to applicators having to deal with customer complaints and potential litigation – but that’s the nature of putting things into the blogosphere…

Example 3:

On July 14 I received an e-mail advertisement from Growth Products, Inc. breathlessly announcing “An Essential Cure For Trees Damaged By Imprelis Or Sahara Herbicides.” Pretty impressive stuff: We’ve only known about the issue for three weeks and these guys have already found the cure. I had to read on. The cure consists of an “Essential Cocktail” of three Growth Products liquids including Essential Plus (a rich concentration of organic ingredients including humic acid), Micrel Total (“Eight chelated minors to help the tree through stress”) and Companion (a biological fungicide). Alas, once again eye of newt and wing of bat were apparently out of stock. But, “The magic mix can be used as a soil drench and/or a soil injection.” The e-mail also included a link to an article I wrote for our extension news that included a photo of some maple trees that had largely recovered from herbicide injury by Sahara in 2009. I also documented the case here on the GP blog I wasn’t aware, but apparently a landscaper treated the trees with some of these concoctions. No word in the e-mail from Growth Products on how the untreated control trees did.

In defense of weeds?

Blog reader Shawn sent this link to me yesterday. It’s a pretty short take on a complex topic, but even so I was troubled by the perception that all nuisance weed species are our own fault.

Sure, it’s true that humans have moved plants or plant parts around with them for centuries. Sometimes it’s been deliberate, and sometimes it’s been accidental. But other animals also move plants around, especially seeds. When we draw this kind of distinction between what we do and what other animals do, philosophically we are removing ourselves from the natural world. True, we have technology and all kinds of other human inventions, but as a species we are still part of the biosphere.

Ivy’s little dispersal units – spread by birds

Philosophical issues aside, there’s another part of this blithe acceptance of weedy species that concerns me. Though plants take advantage of animals as a means of dispersal, the rate at which nonnative, weedy species are spreading and colonizing new environments is unprecedented (this is where technology comes in). Ecosystems can adapt to new species and other environmental challenges – but when the rate is accelerated, the adaptive process is impaired. Thus, some native species go extinct when the rate of change is too great.

Ivy left to its own devices in a natural area

These are basic ecological concepts – and we ignore them at our own peril.

Does native matter?

We’ve had lots of lively discussion on my post regarding the Mark Davis et al. comment in Nature on natives and exotics. I have been traveling and otherwise occupied and have not had a chance to comment so I feel a little like the kid that kicked the anthill and then ran away. Fortunately, Holly was gracious enough to forego her post today (I promise to return the favor, Holly!) so I can chime back in.

Obviously there are lots of layers to the debate but one of the main items in the discussion is whether there is an inherent ecological advantage in planting natives over exotics. At this point the focus always seems to shift to herbivory and the question of whether native insects will eat non-native plants. There are certainly examples each way; some insects are generalists while others are highly specific. More importantly, however, plants fill many other roles in the environment beyond serving as food for insects. Moreover, species composition is just one aspect of diversity. The ecological function of landscape is also determined by how we manage other factors such as structural diversity and age class distributions. In his book “Bringing Nature Home” Doug Tallamy shows a picture of a bland, sprawling suburban landscape ( p. 24) and notes “this highly simplified community is made up of a few species of alien ornamental plants that provide neither food nor shelter for wildlife.” OK, I’ll buy that. But would the situation change if the blue grass was changed to a native grass kept mowed to 2” and the two widely spaced shade trees were changed to natives? Doubtful. The structural complexity; that is, the number and arrangement of grasses, annuals, shrubs, and trees, is likely a bigger driver of ecosystem function than whether the plants are native or exotic.

In his thoughtful comments on the blog post Vincent Vizachero sums up, “I stand by my view that the general heuristic of favoring native plants over alien plants is better than the alternative of not caring about origin at all.” I can buy that as well, but with the caveat that other factors are equal. The rub, of course, is that other factors are rarely equal. And I suppose this is where the pragmatic approach discussed by Davis et al. resonates with me. In my position I do a lot of programming on trees for urban and community forests. I go through a list of criteria to consider for tree selection. Here are some of the key factors I usually discuss:

Adaptation There is no argument that there are well-documented environmental, economic and social benefits to trees in urban and suburban areas. But in order to fulfill these roles trees must be able to survive where they are planted. This means being adapted to abiotic and biotic environmental conditions which are often adverse. In this region of the country there are some native trees that fit the ‘tough trees for tough places’ bill, such as swamp white oak, bur oak, and honey locust. Many other natives, especially understory species, are much more difficult to site.

This street planting in Lansing alternated green ash and Norway maple.

Available space This seems like a no-brainer, but it’s amazing how often this gets overlooked and we end up with too much tree and too little space. Again, we have some great small native trees; Carpinus, redbud, striped maple. But these can be limited in their site adaptability.

Ash stumps

Diversity In Michigan some communities have lost 30% of their tree cover to the emerald ash borer. Have we learned our lesson about improving species diversity? Not really. But we need to keep trying. Exotic pests are here and here to stay. Does anyone believe that global trade will decrease in the near future? Does anyone believe that there will be quantum leap in our ability to detect and intercept hitch-hiking pests? In order to continue to accrue the benefits of urban and community forests we need to continue to diversify our portfolio; this includes a mix of natives and exotics. I doubt there will ever be sufficient data to prove one way other, but it seems reasonable to me that an urban and community forest balanced among 20-25 native and exotic species will be better able to withstand the slings and arrows of weather and pests better than one made up of 8-10 natives.

Excerpt from Davis et al. letter to Nature on natives vs aliens

In yesterday’s post I linked to a letter in Nature by Mark Davis and a number of other ecologists on the role and native and alien plants. Unfortunately the journal requires a subscription. Copyright laws prevent me from re-printing the entire article, however, below is an excerpt from the conclusion, which I think captures most of their message.

“Most human and natural communities now consist both of long-term residents and of new arrivals, and ecosystems are emerging that never existed before. It is impractical to try to restore ecosystems to some ‘rightful’ historical state. For example, of the 30 planned plant eradication efforts undertaken in the Galapagos Islands since 1996, only 4 have been successful. We must embrace the fact of ‘novel ecosystems’ and incorporate many alien species into management plans, rather than try to achieve the often impossible goal of eradicating them or drastically reducing their abundance. Indeed, many of the species that people think of as native are actually alien. For instance, in the United States, the ring-necked pheasant, the state bird of South Dakota, is not native to the great plains of North America but was introduced from Asia as a game bird in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

“Specifically, policy and management decisions must take into account the positive effects of many invaders. During the 1990s, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) declared several species of introduced honeysuckles to be alien (harmful), and banned their sale in more than 25 states. Ironically, from the 1960s to the 1980s, the USDA had introduced many of these same species in land reclamation projects, and to improve bird habitats. Recent data suggest that the agency’s initial instincts may have been appropriate. In Pennsylvania, more non-native honeysuckles mean more native bird species. Also the seed dispersal of native berry-producing plants is higher in places where non-native honeysuckles are most abundant (Gleditsch, J. M. & Carlo, T. J. Diversity Distrib. 17, 244-253 (2010).

“Clearly, natural-resource agencies and organizations should base their management plans on sound empirical evidence and not on unfounded claims of harm caused by non-natives. Another valuable step would be for scientists and professionals in conservation to convey to the public that many alien species are useful.

“We are not suggesting that conservationists abandon their efforts to mitigate serious problems caused by some introduced species, or that governments should stop trying to prevent potentially harmful species from entering their countries. But we urge conservationists and land managers to organize priorities around whether species are producing benefits or harm to biodiversity, human health, ecological services and economies. Nearly two centuries on from the introduction of the concept of nativeness, it is time for conservationists to focus much more on the functions of species, and much less on where they originated.”