Let’s get (soil) physical…

We’ve had quite a bit of discussion this past week on the FaceBook page regarding Kelly Norris’s article in Fine Gardening on dealing with clay soils.  While Kelly’s article mainly addressed selecting plants for heavy soils, there was a side-bar on cultural approaches to dealing with clays; including the standard advice to avoid adding sand to clays.  This advice has been around for years.  The first time I recall hearing it was from Dr. Carl Whitcomb when I took his Arboriculture class nearly 30 years ago (Fall 1984 to be exact).  The rationale that is usually given is that adding sand to clay is the essentially recipe for concrete.  Technically, of course, this is not entirely true since making concrete also requires cement.  Nevertheless, trying to amend a clay soil with sand can lead to more problems than it solves.  The fundamental issue is not that clay + sand = concrete.  After all, there are plenty of highly productive soils in nature that have various ratios of sand and clay and they don’t form concrete.  The bigger issue is that tilling a clay soil (which you’d have to do to incorporate added sand) leads to a loss of soil structure.

 

So, what is soil structure?  Soil structure is a physical property of soil that describes its relatively ability to form aggregates.  Unlike soil texture, which can be quantified as percent sand, silt, and clay; structure is a qualitative soil physical property.  Common examples of soil structure are granular, platy or blocky.

 

 

While we usually think of clay as a negative thing (“Geez Jim, my wife just told me you have clay, I am so sorry…”); a well-structured clay soil can have excellent properties for plant growth.  Well-formed clay aggregates (referred to as ‘peds’) in a granular soil can function very much like larger soil particles in terms of water movement and drainage.  Soil structure is one of those things you have to experience to understand.  About the best description I can come with is that peds in a well-structured granular soil often have the consistency and texture of Grape Nuts cereal.

 

There are also soils out there that are sometimes referred to a ‘structureless’ soils.  These include single-grained soils and massive soils.  Single-grained soils are essentially pure sand.  In West Michigan these occur near Lake Michigan and are often called ‘blow sands’.  We have several seedling nursery operations in these areas.  Since there is no clay these soils have almost no nutrient-holding capacity – growers have to manage their fertility almost as it were a soilless system like a hydroponic or aeroponic system.  The advantage of growing in these soils is it makes lifting bare-root seedlings easy. Massive soils, on the other hand, are very dense soils where particles do not show any evidence of aggregation.  Repeated tillage can result in loss of structure and a soil (or portions of the soil) may show attributes of a massive soil including crusting or formation of hardpan.  The example below shows how structure (indicated by % aggregation) is lost through repeated cultivation.

 

 

 

Effect of soil tillage on soil structure.  Source (Greacen 1958, Australian J. Ag. Res. 9:129-137).

What can be done to improve or preserve structure?  This is a case where less is often better.  Natural processes such as freeze-thaw cycles and the action of earthworms and other invertebrates work to loosen soil and create aggregates.  The tips in the Norris article (avoid overworking soil and adding organic matter) are essentially the same advice I would give.

A Tree Story

Given my line of work, it’s probably no surprise I’m a sap for tree stories (no pun intended).  Last week I was in Nova Scotia for the biennial International Christmas Tree Research and Extension conference.  The conference and associated tours provided an opportunity to learn about Christmas tree production in Nova Scotia, one of the leading Christmas tree producing regions of North America.  During the conference I also learned about the annual tradition of Nova Scotia’s Tree for Boston.

Each year Nova Scotia, through its Department of Natural Resources, presents a 40’-50’ Christmas tree (balsam fir, white spruce or red spruce) to the city of Boston.  The gesture is an annual reminder of Nova Scotia’s gratitude for Boston’s and Massachusetts’ immediate aid and generosity in response to the Great Halifax Explosion of 1917.  For those of you, like me, that were not familiar with the story, the Great Halifax Explosion occurred in Halifax Harbor on the morning of December 6, 1917.  The French Freighter Mont Blanc, packed with explosives bound for the Allies’ war efforts, collided with another ship and caught fire.  The explosion that followed, reported to be the largest man-made explosion of the pre-nuclear era, leveled a large portion of Halifax and neighboring Dartmouth, killing nearly 2,000 people and injuring 9,000 more.  Within hours of the massive explosion, the governor of Massachusetts sent two trainloads of relief supplies to the devastated city.  As a token of their appreciation, the citizens of Halifax provided Boston with a Christmas tree for Christmas 1917.

 

The tradition of providing a Tree for Boston was revived 1971 and has become an annual event ever since.  While the cynical may deride this as a crass and commercial promotion for tourism and Christmas tree exports, the gratitude and affection of Nova Scotians for Boston seems heartfelt nearly a century after the disaster.  And, if nothing else, Nova Scotia’s Tree for Boston serves as a history lesson, at least for those of us in the U.S., on this over-looked chapter of World War I.

 

Neon continued!

I’ll follow Bert’s highly informative, thought-inducing post with something not statistically significant. Hey, it’s summer.

My last post on ultra-bright “neon” plants had a comment from Sarah…

“I saw some iresine in a local garden center the other day, sun coming
through it at just the right angle, and the shade of blazing pink that
came through was basically every Barbie accessory I ever had. It just
seemed wrong somehow. Took a picture of it with my phone.” 

Aside from a hilarious (and insightful) comment, she included a URL to her photo.

It’s so good I had to post it. The pink plastic-y glow is amazing.


Fab photo by Commenter Sarah of Iresine herbstii – chicken gizzard plant

I had to greatly lower the resolution so that the system would let me post it. At full size and resolution, it almost hurts to look at it.

Incidentally, I’ve always thought “chicken gizzard plant” was a bit of a misnomer. I’ve seen really fresh chicken gizzards, and Barbie would NOT want accessories in that particular shade.

 

How to lie with statistics

I’m attending the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) meeting this week in sunny (and hot) Palm Desert, CA.  Tomorrow I will be presenting some of the early results from the SOME-DED-TREES study.  For those that are new to the blog, SOME-DED-TREES is the acronym for the Social Media DesigneD TREe Establishment Study.  Last year, my students and I established a landscape tree study in which the treatments were suggested by Garden Professor’s blog readers.  Actually, we ended up installing two studies: one to look at fertilization at planting and one to look at impacts of mulching at planting.  The trees were ‘Bloodgood’ planetrees grown in 25 gallon containers.  In each study we divided the trees into three root treatments: We “shaved” the outer roots to eliminate circling roots; we “teased” apart the circling roots; or we just planted the trees as is (or “Pop and drop” to use Linda’s vernacular).

I reported some of the results of the mulch study here on the blog last fall and will include some of those data in my talk tomorrow.  I am also presenting some of the data from the fertilizer portion of the study.  One of the ways we assessed fertilizer response is by using a device known as a SPAD meter.

 SPAD meters have been around for a while and they are very useful.  The device measures light transmittance through a leaf, which is highly correlated with leaf chlorophyll content.  Chlorophyll content, in turn, is highly dependent on foliar nutrition so SPAD readings often provide a useful indicator of plant nutrient status. 

Here at the meeting I am using my laptop, which means I am without my usual statistical and graphing software.  So in order to plot some of the data for my talk I am relying on Excel.  This gets me to “How to lie with statistics.”  When I calculated the means for this June’s SPAD chlorophyll index values this is the chart I got.  Looks like a pretty impressive response to fertilizer, doesn’t it?

SPAD chlorophyll index of Planetrees fertilized at plant (Fert) and control trees (No).

The problem is the scale.  Note that by default, Excel truncated the scale on the y axis to values between 28 and 36.  This is a big no-no in scientific circles.  Graphs scales should include zero or show if break if there is some reason the range needs to be truncated.  The reason truncating the scale is a no-no, as shown here, is that it makes differences look proportionately larger than they really are.  Advertisers use this trick all the time.  Next time you see a bar chart in a sales brochure or magazine ad, look that the scale – bet it doesn’t go to zero. 

Let’s look at the chart after I re-scale it.  It still looks like there’s still something going on with fertilizer, but it doesn’t make you go, “Whoa!” like the first chart.

SPAD chlorophyll index of Planetrees fertilized at plant (Fert) and control trees (No).

As it turns out, there is a statistically significant effect of fertilizer on the June SPAD values.  However, this effect essentially disappeared by the time we re-assessed the trees three weeks later.  Here’s the final version of the data as it will appear in my ASHS talk tomorrow.

This brings up another issue we face in this kind of work; statistical significance versus biological or practical significance.  The ‘Fert: p<0.01’ on the slide indicates there is a 99% probability that the difference in the mean SPAD values between Fertilized and Non-fertilized trees on June 17 is not due to random chance or error.  But as the leaves continue to mature this effect essentially disappears.  Could the early season boost in nutrition be enough to give these trees an edge in the long run?  Possibly, but I wouldn’t say likely.  To date we have not seen any effects of fertilizer on growth but it’s still relatively early in the game. Tree growth is cumulative and effects that may be too subtle to detect early on may turn out to be significant later on. Stay tuned. 

Neon for your garden

Was wandering through Target on Monday for the first time in months.

Helloooo!? The 80’s called and wants its neon crap back.

Didn’t care for it then and certainly don’t care for it now. Though there is the increased safety factor of being highly visible at all times, whether in sunglasses or underwear.

But never mind my lack of style.

It made me think about a few plants that, if the light is right, certainly display that glowing, saturated color, found in the “Astro-Brite” pack of copy paper usually reserved for yard sales and such.

Close to dusk, the Kniphofia uvaria ‘Echo Mango’ in our garden stands out from 100 yards away.  Bred and selected by Richard Saul of Atlanta’s ItSaul Plants Inc., it is one tough perennial, taking heat and humidity with aplomb.

My experience has been one big early summer flush of blooms, with some significant reblooming until frost.  Best in full sun, it’s also drought tolerant and cold hardy to USDA Zone 5. It doesn’t get whopping huge like some other Kniphofia do – stays a nice manageble size, topping out at 3′ to 4′ tall.  ‘Echo Mango’ (or any other Red Hot Poker) adds a terrific bit of vertical interest to an otherwise mound-y mixed border.  Best with fellow warm colors. Pink, not so much.


‘Echo Mango’ = glowsticks!
Achillea ‘Paprika’ doesn’t go so well with it.  Mental note to relocate it in fall.


You can almost hear the sound of space lasers…
Eeee-yoooooo-eeeee-yoooooo…or maybe that’s just me.

 

 

Brace yourself

The photo below (graciously sent to me by former MSU Extension Educator Jennie Stanger) graphically illustrates the importance of removing ALL staking and supporting materials from trees once they are established.

 

 


Just a matter of time (Photo: Jennie Stanger)

In this case the stakes were removed but the strapping material was left around the tree.  Since this is a spruce, Jennie supposes no one wanted the prickly job of wading into the center of the tree to take off the strap.  Eventually the trunk was girdled and when the area recently experienced some heavy thunderstorms, the weak spot on the tree was exposed.

 

 


Stately evergreen to mangled mess (Photo Jennie Stanger)

As a general rule we recommend that all staking and support materials are removed within two years, preferably one year.  This type of damage is one of the prime reasons: after two years who is likely to remember that there is still strapping left on the tree?

The heartbreak of ‘Carrot-top’ syndrome

The perk of participating in a blog is you get a platform to vent on your pet peeves.  Recently I’ve seen several classic examples of ‘Carrot-top’ syndrome.  No, I’m not talking about the red-headed comic; though he tends to annoy me too.


Annoying Carrot-top #1.

The ‘Carrot-top’ I’m referring to occurs when white pine trees are sheared as Christmas trees but then planted as landscape trees.  The typical result is that the side and lower branches remain suppressed while the terminals go crazy.  I’m not sure why syndrome occurs in white pines and not other trees; it may be related to vigor of white pines and how hard the growers have to shear them to keep them in shape.

 


Annoying Carrot-top #2.

I love my friends in the nursery and Christmas tree industries and they work hard to grow quality trees, but this is one practice I’d like to see end.  And, to be fair, they are giving customers what they want.  If we set up a survey at a garden center and placed  a 7’ sheared white pine next to a 7’ white pine that had been minimally pruned, 19 out of 20 people would take the tree that had been sheared to look like a Christmas tree.  However, this is truly a case where less is more.

Going off half-cocked

The good news about being a landscape extension specialist is you get to comment on a variety of landscape tree problems.  The bad news?  You get to comment on a variety of landscape tree problems.  In an average week I probably get 10-15 tree-related calls or e-mails from homeowners, landscapers, growers, extension educators, lawyers, newspapers, and on and on.  Sometimes the problem is routine and obvious like tar spot on maples; “I have these spots that look like tar on my maple leaves…”  Sometimes the problem looks routine and turns into something else entirely different like the Imprelis herbicide debacle.  With the number if problems I respond to, invariable I sometimes end up shooting from the hip – and miss the mark.


Red maple with sparse canopy (right foreground).  Maple in left-center of picture across the road was planted at the same time.

A few weeks back I noticed some red maples on campus that were struggling as they were starting to leaf out.  There were planted about three years ago following a road-widening project.  They are located on a tough site between a parking lot and a busy 4-lane road.  My immediate diagnosis was they were weakened due to the aftereffects of last year’s sever heat and drought.  I even included a photo of them in an article I did for our on-line extension news.  Then this morning I happened to talk to a friend from our campus landscape services.  “Boy, those maples sure took a beating from the drought last year”, I volunteered.  My Landscape services friend replied, “Well, that and we hit them with Shortstop last year…” Uh oh, now the conversation was going in a different direction.  Shortstop is a plant growth retardant, the active ingredient is paclobutrazol, which inhibits GA synthesis in plants and is being widely used by arborists to reduce the need for tree pruning.  In this case it worked a little too well and the trees ended up being stunted.

Leaves of paclobutrazol-treat maple (left); untreated leaves on right.

In my defense, I was partly right.  Under normal weather patterns paclobutrazol applied at the labeled rates (as was done here) would have reduced shoot growth and leaf growth but clearly the drought exaggerated the effect.  So, another lesson learned (actually re-learned) never assume anything about trees until you talk to the people who actually take care of them.

Sheep-eating flowers?!

I was planning to follow up on Jeff’s phosphorus post with a bit more “phun with phosphorous.” However, I was completely derailed by Ray Eckhart’s message and link left for me on our GP facebook page with this headline:

RHS ‘sheep-eating’ plant about to bloom in Surrey

“The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) at Wisley said the Puya
chilensis
, a native of Chile, would bloom in the next few days and last
about a week.

In the Andes it uses its sharp spines to snare and trap sheep and other animals, which slowly starve to death.”

“The animals then decay at the base of the plant, acting as a fertiliser.”

[Dear BBC News: “Snare” and “Eat” are not really interchangeable]

How…have I not heard of this before.

I’ve posted previously on my Puya fixation. I asked readers to bet on how long it would take for me to kill my wee Puya bertoniana, mail-ordered from Annie’s Annuals.  I am happy to report that it made through the winter (greenhouse) and is now sunning itself on our deck.

Now this really ups the ante – it captures sheep!  Maybe P. bertoniana isn’t as robust as P. chilensis though. Perhaps…a vole or rabbit?

Phosphorus and Big Macs

Minnesota, and I were cruising through old pictures and files and getting all sentimental about the cool stuff we used to do.   A lot of it was never published just because after we were done with one thing we were just too damn excited to move on to the next.  Anyway, one of the neatest experiments that we never wrote up was a phosphorus experiment.  Here’s what it looked like to the casual observer.

Now let me explain the neat part to you a little.  Inside those boxes, underneath three of the six plants in each container, are vials set up like this – three vials per plant (the black tubes provide air to the vials).

Each plant had one root placed into each of the three vials – one vial contained 1 ppm phosphorus, one vial contained 10 ppm phosphorus, and one vial contained 30 ppm phosphorus.  The tub itself was also filled with one of these three solutions (1, 10, or 30 ppm phosphorus) as seen below.

At the end of the experiment we weighed the roots filling each vial, as well as weighing all of the roots from each plant.  Here’s what we found for the individual vials.

As you can see, more phosphorus in a vial meant that the plant would devote more energy to growing roots there – but also notice that the 10 ppm solution has the greatest mass of roots overall.  Here’s what we saw when we looked at the total size of all of the roots from plants for the different solutions.

As you can see, the roots from the plants in the 10 ppm solution are the largest (shoots showed the same trend).  So here’s the way I see it (this is the Big Mac part).  I love Big Macs.  If I see a McDonald’s I want to go in there – I gravitate towards McDonald’s to get Big Macs.  But too many Big Macs aren’t good for me.  They might even stunt my growth!  It’s the same for phosphorus.  Roots do grow towards phosphorus (this isn’t technically correct, but it works for my analogy so I’m sticking with it!), but that doesn’t mean that a tremendous amount of phosphorus is actually good for them.  In fact, it might even stunt their growth!  This could be for a variety of reasons, but most likely because the phosphorus would interfere with the uptake of other elements.