Uncategorized – Page 46 – The Garden Professors™

Is local always better?

As those that have followed the blog for awhile are aware, among my pet peeves are some of the naïve statements that are repeated ad nauseam by proponents of native plants for landscaping. You know the usual litany: natives don’t need water, don’t need fertilizer, resistant to insects, resistant to diseases, yada, yada… According to the dogma, native plants possess these traits because they’ve evolved here and they belong here. I hasten to point out; I have nothing against natives and think we ought to plant more of them whenever they are an appropriate choice. The problem, of course, with the typical native company line is that these statements are so obviously nonsensical they undermine the credibility of native plant advocates. Adaptations to resist environmental stress, for example, are a function natural selection and evolution. There are lots of droughty environments in the world; why should we assume that only local plants will be adapted to drought? Then there is the obvious problem of disturbed environments. Why should we assume that trees that have evolved in native woodlands will be good street trees? In fact, often they’re not.

Torryea taxifolia

But a new and potentially contentious argument is emerging in the ‘Is native better?’ discussion: Assisted migration. The basic premise of assisted migration (also referred to as assisted colonization) is that climate is changing faster than many organisms, especially long-lived organisms like trees, can evolve. Therefore to prevent species extinctions we should pro-actively move species (typically northward in the Northern hemisphere) so they will be in a better place as the world gets warmer. Sound far-fetched? Some of this is already occurring. In Florida a group called the Torreya Guardians has already taken it upon themselves to establish populations of a threatened conifer, Torreya taxifolia, in the southern Appalachians, outside of its native range in the panhandle of Florida. http://www.torreyaguardians.org/ In British Columbia, the provincial forest service is beginning to incorporate climate change scenarios into its tree improvement and development plans; trying to identify seed sources and species adapted to climates predicted throughout the 21^st century.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32012170/ns/us_news-environment/

Is local better? Foresters often see significant growth gains by moving seed sources northward. Will climate change increase this effect?

Clearly assisted migration is a controversial topic fraught with all kinds of uncertainties. Is climate really changing? How fast will it change? What about unintended consequences? Could the assisted species out-compete a local species that would’ve been OK otherwise? And then there are those who might wonder aloud about the hypocrisy of embracing species movements when they’re done by conservation biologists but not by horticulturists.

Cold enough for ya?

Like many people we spent the past couple days digging out from the massive snowstorm that swept across a large swath of the country. This was definitely a made-for-TV-weather event as national and local TV weatherfolks took up their positions and gave us breathless live-remotes of the “Blizzard of 2011”.

40 mph wind + 1 little crack = a barn full of snow.

Almost as predictable as video footage of snow-ploughs on the streets and locals snow-blowing sidewalks; climate change skeptics are using the recent round of winter weather as proof that global warming is a hoax and that there’s really nothing to worry about except the economics of ‘cap and trade’. Just google “climate change skeptics blizzard” and you’ll get the idea.

Bob and Quincy were unfazed by the sub-zero wind-chills.

The problem, of course, is that climate patterns don’t move in a strictly linear trajectory and looking at one extreme event doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. Even looking a few years time sequence may not present the full picture. Deroy Murdock used the illustration below to argue in the National Review Online that there is no link between rising CO2 and increasing temperatures.

But looking at a broader timescale tells a different story. While there are year to year fluctuations a clearer association between rising CO2 and global temperature begins to emerge.

The figure above was taken from an article by Stamhoff et al. 2007, “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” (Science 316 (4): 709). The dashed lines represent the ranges predicted by a major climate model starting in 1990 – the solid line represents what actually happened. As shown in the figure, climate models have been fairly accurate overall and, if anything, have been conservative in predicting climate change; especially with regard to changes in sea level.

So where am I going with this? There are certainly enough climate change debate/Al Gore bashing blogs out there to go around and I don’t want to devolve entirely into that debate, but the simplistic ‘exception proves the rule’ mentality of the skeptics gets a little tiresome. I remember hearing my first talk on global warming at a forest biology conference in the mid-1980’s. The main point that stuck with me then was that increasing global CO2 would not necessarily result in warming every year but that we would see an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme climatic events; droughts, hurricanes, floods, and yes, even blizzards. Even some of the earliest discussions on climate change in the early 1980’s (e.g., Manabe and Stoufer 1980) recognized complex feedbacks in the global climate system that would result in some regions getting wetter while others suffered drought. So while the skeptics may use this weeks’ blizzard as evidence against climate change, increasing frequency of severe weather actually argues for it.

A few other climate facts to ponder:

-Global CO2 is increasing and continues to increase (see top panel in figure above).

– Globally, 12 of the 13 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.

-Intensity of hurricanes and cyclones is increasing (Webster et al., 2005). While Fox and Friends were happily using the Blizzard of 2011 to debunk climate change; did they notice the most powerful cyclone on record was slamming into Australia?

-Frequency and severity of droughts is increasing worldwide (Burke and Brown, 2006).

-Glaciers are disappearing. If you want to go to Glacier National Park and actually see a glacier, you need to hurry. In 1850 there were 150 glaciers in the park. Today there are 25 and they will likely be gone in 10 years.

Warning: This blog may be hazardous to your health

Following up on Jeff’s post last week regarding blue spruce. Jeff noted, and several posters agreed, that even though blue spruce will eventually have a host of pest problems, for the first 10 years or so it’s a darn good looking landscape conifer. Jeff went on to draw the analogy that choosing a blue spruce is like choosing sexy sports car or gas guzzler over a boring, high MPG sedan. To a certain extent the libertarian in me agrees. If I want to plant a blue spruce in my Michigan backyard or buy a Nissan Titan to commute back and forth to work , by Gawd, that’s nobody’s business but my own. Of course the difference in these situations is that I have EPA reporting to tell me the Titan only gets 12 MPG in the city; for the spruce, people like Jeff, me, and our highly intelligent readers know what we’re getting into from experience and training. But what about the public at large? Maybe what we need are government warning labels for plants. We have them for cigarettes: “Warning: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy”, though the European warning, “Smoking kills” is more direct and to the point. We also have warnings for side effects of prescription medications; “may cause nausea, vomiting, headache, hearing loss, oily discharge, an erection lasing four hours, and thoughts of suicide”. Think I’ll take my chances with the disease, thank you.

So what kind of labels do plants need?

Blue spruce: Warning this plant will look great in your yard for 10 years and then fall apart when it becomes a magnet for gall adelgid and loses half its limbs to cyctospora.

Eastern white pine: Caution: This little guy looks like a cute little Christmas right now but in 10 years it can devour your house.

Silver maple: Warning: Don’t blame us when this tree comes crashing though your house during windstorm.

Sweetgum: Caution: Be sure to retain a good attorney for when your neighbors start tripping over gumballs on the sidewalk.

That’s a start. What plants do you think need warning labels?

A comment about home remedies from Catherine Daniels

In case you didn’t see yesterday’s comment that was added to Jeff Gillman’s January 6 post on home remedies, I’ve posted it here. Dr. Catherine Daniels is WSU’s pesticide coordinator:

I’ve enjoyed reading the science-based information on your site. Keep up the good work. As regards home remedies, that is slippery slope, both legally and morally. Having a written definition of what you will or will not accept is helpful, especially if done in advance. Then you can be sure of being consistent and deliberate at least. There are both state and federal laws regarding pesticides, and state laws do vary. The most important thing is to know your state’s interpretation of those laws and to be mindful that with a blog you may be talking to people in state’s where laws are interpreted differently. I mention that for your legal protection. For example, in Washington State, if you talk to a user group (such as the public), and discuss the ways to use a material as a pesticide, it becomes a de facto pesticide recommendation. A legally-liable recommendation. When a researcher publishes information in a journal it’s not directed at a user audience so is not considered a recommendation by the author. If you take it to the public, at least here, it becomes a recommendation you made, unless you insert certain disclaimers. It’s always attractive to try and “help” the public find some easier, faster, cheaper solution to a pest problem. With pesticides and the public, you offer a better service directing them to a tested material which is registered and has a consistent concentration from batch to batch. Having personal safety and storage instructions is important…things that are missing in make-it-yourself squirt bottle solutions. Home remedies encourage people to think that the solution is “safe” (for people, not pests) because it’s made out of everyday ingredients. But as we know, the dose makes the poison. Nicotine is a nerve poison which you wouldn’t want a child to come into contact with accidentally because the squirt bottle wasn’t labelled or put in a safe place. I agree that our role is to educate, not police household cupboards or public pesticide use patterns. But by the same token, because we (educators)are trained to look at the big picture, there are good reasons to consider sticking to a label. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Where to Draw The Line on Home Remedies

On Tuesday Holly posted an extremely interesting article about how Bounce could help control fungus gnats. Then one of our frequent commenters (and all around great guy) Ray Eckhart pointed out that he has a problem with promulgating an off-label use of a product. And that got me to thinking. What household products is it OK for us to suggest that a consumer use for a non-labeled purpose, and what products shouldn’t we suggest? This is a question that has haunted me for a long time, so with this post I want to give you my line of thinking – I’m not trying to tell you what’s right or wrong – just trying to let you know my thoughts on the topic.

First of all, let’s admit that there are off-label uses of products which most of us hardly think about and simply accept as “generally OK.” For example, I have never been taken to task for suggesting using a plastic bag for protecting fruit from insects or for suggesting that dish washing detergent may be a good insecticide. Of course both of these pest control techniques have their drawbacks (it can get hot in the bags in the South, injuring fruit, and insecticidal soap can burn the foliage of sensitive leaves) still, using these products outside of their labeling doesn’t seem to bother people too much. Likewise, the idea of using alcohol to stunt plant growth, eggshells to stop slugs, or milk to control plant disease doesn’t seem to upset people too badly (whether they work or not being beside the point).

But there are some off-label uses of products which could be considered obviously bad. For example, controlling weeds by dumping gasoline on them and setting them on fire, or perhaps washing your ripe fruit in a cup of paint thinner.

Then there are the off-label uses of products such as mouthwash for plant disease and tobacco juice for insects. I see these as neither obviously fine nor obviously terrible. So where is the line to be drawn?

In my opinion, as an extension educator, I feel that it is my job to tell my audience (That’s you guys!) the facts about different gardening/growing techniques including those that are “off-label.” I don’t feel that it’s my job to tell you what to do and what not to do (well…maybe with the exception of telling you not to pour gasoline on your weeds and light them on fire or not to soak your food in paint thinner!) It is up to you to make your own decisions.

Let’s go through a “for-instance” here. And let’s use one that I’ve written about – using hot peppers as an insecticidal spray. Hot pepper sprays can work to control certain insects. Just mix up a few hot peppers with some water, add some dish detergent, put it into a spray bottle, and off you go. I have used sprays like this myself in small experiments to control mites, and they have worked reasonably well. I have also read a number of articles showing that these sprays have at least some effect on certain pest insects. But hot peppers certainly aren’t “labeled” for use against insects, and let me tell you, a little hot pepper in the eyes, or even the skin, and you can be in pain for hours. Long term damage is unlikely – but not impossible. So what should I, as an extension educator, do? In my opinion exactly what I just did – give you the facts and let you make your own decisions. I feel exactly the same way about Holly’s post about Bounce – she gave you the facts – if you want to try using Bounce to control something then that’s up to you. Do I recommend Bounce for controlling insects? No. But I’m the kind of person who encourages careful experimentation, so I wouldn’t tell you not to use Bounce to try to control insects either – though I would tell you to be very careful and that unintended consequences might arise.

New Year’s Prediction: Invasive Fire Continues to Burn

Happy New Year! I hope everyone had restful and enjoyable holidays. In addition to looking back over the year that just past, a common New Year’s tradition is to make predictions for the coming year. Without going too far out on a limb, one of my predictions for the upcoming year is that the debate over invasive plants will continue to intensify, especially as it relates to Landscape Horticulture. Along these lines, a couple of recent articles by Gregorio Gavier-Pizarro and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin and the USDA Forest Service caught my eye.

In both studies; “Housing is positively associated with invasive exotic plant species richness in New England, USA” (Ecological Applications 20:7, 1913-1925) and “Rural housing is related to plant invasions in forests of southern Wisconsin, USA” (Landscape Ecology 25:10, 1505-1518), the investigators conducted on-ground assessments of species richness and density of commonly listed invasive plants (e.g., Japanese barberry, Autumn olive, Honeysuckle, Common buckthorn, Multiflora rose) in conjunction with spatial analysis of remote sensing data to examine patterns of invasive spread in the urban/wildland interface. As one would expect, the presence and species richness of the invasives increased with development. An important ‘take home’ message, however, is that disturbance associated with rural housing development and the creation of edges appears to be the biggest driver of invasive species encroachment. That is, land clearing, road-building and other development activities create habitats that are more susceptible colonization – a condition referred to as ‘invasibility’. So whether a particular homeowner plants natives or non-invasive exotics they may still contribute to the expansion of invasive exotic plants in their region by increasing its invisibility.

The other thing that makes this work and related studies significant is that I think we will see a continued shift in the efforts to curtail the expansion of invasive exotic plants. In particular, rural housing development and associated landscape practices will become and increasingly intense front-line in the invasive battle.

</d

One To Go!

Just one more little holiday to go over holiday week (A week during which faculty at UMN were put on furlough — in other words unpaid vacation), but for many of you I’m sure it’s a big one: New Years. I’ve never been one for New Years resolutions. It’s always just seemed kind of artificial to me. Still, some people find real motivation with the passing of a new year. What about you? Any great New Year’s resolutions out there related to gardening?

Happy Holidays!

Relaxing at the in-laws in Ohio for the long Christmas weekend. Hope all of our blog readers are having a enjoyable holidays. In other words, I hope you didn’t have to fly anywhere over this Christmas weekend!

I’ve been catching up on some reading including recent articles on invasive alien plants that should be of interest to our readers. I’ll share some thoughts when I get back on schedule next week. In the meantime there’s still another football game to watch this evening and another plate of my mother-in-law’s cookies that need some attention.

Have a safe and happy New Year!

Bees and Pesticides

I had the opportunity to read a disturbing post over at Garden Rant the other day about the insecticide clothianidin and how the EPA required its producer, Bayer, to run tests on the safety of using plants grown from seeds treated with clothianidin for bees. Tests which were, apparently, never carried out appropriately. This post sent me over to another site, AlterNet, which explained the problem in detail. In a nutshell what happened is that the EPA asked Bayer to run some tests on how its new pesticide might affect bees. Bayer was unresponsive at first, but eventually did run some tests (which were not what you would call robust) which showed that bees did fine when flitting around in a field of plants which came from clothianidin treated seeds – at least for as long as the test was carried out.

Then one of our commenters asked for our opinion, and heaven knows, I am always more than happy to offer my personal opinion! So here it is. I am extremely unhappy with both Bayer and the EPA in this instance. They didn’t do what they were supposed to do. It’s as simple as that. Tests were supposed to be run to demonstrate that it is unlikely that clothianidin affects bees. This wasn’t done in a reasonable period of time. Period. As long as stuff like this occurs nobody is going to trust the EPA or the chemical manufacturers. In terms of whether the tests were sufficient (basically some hives in a field of treated plants), well, I would have liked to have seen more depth, but they didn’t seem to be bad studies.

The implication is that, because we don’t have enough testing, clothianidin could be causing bee colonies to collapse. This goes hand in hand with the suspicion that imidacloprid is leading to colony collapse since both of these chemicals are neonicotinoids. We know that these pesticides can get into flowers where bees come into contact with them. The question is whether the bees contact enough to cause hives to collapse (There is no question that these chemicals, at some level, are poisonous to bees – just as almost anything can be poisonous to humans at a high enough dose – even water).

One thing that is lost in this discussion is that SEED TREATMENTS were being examined. A seed treatment is when the seeds which are planted are treated with a pesticide (in this case clothianidin) to protect the seed itself and the young plant from insects. As the plant grows the insecticide will break down and become diluted – And so it is probably not going to be present at high levels in pollen that the plant (which comes from the treated seed) produces. Still, there is potential for this to happen and so it is best if the plants which come from the seed are tested – hence the EPA’s request.

Historically, there are pesticides which have clearly and unambiguously lain waste to bee hives, the most infamous of which was Penncap-M. This was a unique pesticide because it was a microencapsulation of the very dangerous insecticide methyl parathion. The microencapsulation process made this pesticide last longer, and made it somewhat safer to handle, but it also made the pesticide into tiny little beads – about the same size as, you guessed it, pollen. In fruit trees in particular this stuff would become attached to the bees (just like pollen does) and you can imagine the disastrous results. The answer was to limit the use of this poison to certain times of the year and certain situations when bees were not likely to be around. Why wasn’t it just banned outright? Because it worked well and, when used appropriately, it didn’t affect bees (Here I’m giving you the official line – In my opinion its use should have been even more restricted than it was). Penncap-M is not closely related to the neonicotinoids chemically, though it does affect insects’ nervous systems as many insecticides, including the neonicotinoids, do.

You can count me as one of the people who suspect that the neonicotinoids have something to do with colony collapse. I’m not a bee researcher — but it is easy to see how the use of these chemicals might weaken a hive to the point where mites or disease could come in. One of the things that drives me a little nuts though are those people who think that banning neonicotinoids is going to save our bees. It seems quite obvious at this point that these chemicals are definitely not the sole cause of the disease and perhaps not even one of the major contributing factors. They essentially banned these pesticides in parts of Europe, and guess what? They still have bee colonies collapsing. An interesting side note is that historically large-scale losses of bees isn’t as odd as we might think – in fact, we might have seen this disease (CCD) before. Perhaps even in the 1800s. In short, it seems that the answer to this problem is not as simple as banning some pesticides (though restricting their use may be a piece of the solution). I wish it were.

What fir?

OK, it’s the middle of December so I get to indulge my passion for Christmas trees. One of the most interesting projects I’ve gotten to work on during my time at Michigan State is a study to look at alternative species of firs (Abies spp) for Christmas trees and well as for landscape conifers. Firs are fascinating trees that are distributed throughout temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. There are about 50 species, many of which are important for timber, landscaping or Christmas trees.

For those of you that put off your Christmas tree shopping until the end (or want to start thinking about next year’s tree) here are three trees to keep an eye out for.

Korean fir Abies koreana We have several growers in Michigan that are now growing Korean fir. It has relatively short needles that have a bottle-brush arrangement on the stem. The color is often described as dark green, but I’d say the needles tend more to a true green or Kelly green with a silvery underside.

Concolor fir also makes a great landscape conifer

Conolor fir Abies concolor I grew up in the Northwest so I always knew this tree as white fir until I moved to the Midwest. In any case, it’s a great tree. Long, soft-blue needles. Depending on the seed source they can be as blue as a blue spruce. The main draw-back here in Michigan is that concolor tend to break bud early, which makes them susceptible to frost damage in the spring. Their citrus-like scent is hard to beat.

Danish growers compete for the best Nordmann fir in the “Fight for the Golden star” at their annual tree fair.

Nordmann fir Abies nordmanniana Denmark is the leading producer of Christmas trees in Europe and Nordmann fir is their principle species. The Danes like Nordmann because of its deep, dark green color and natural form and symmetry. Europeans don’t like their Christmas trees sheared so they rely heavily on genetics and selection to find trees that naturally have good form. We’re starting to see more Nordmann in the US, both here in the Midwest and in the Northwest. Growers complain that the trees are slow-growing to start but I think some US consumers are looking for a more open, natural-looking tree and Nordmann can fill this niche.