Of Football and Forests

 Howdy all – I’ve been on vacation and then inundated by all that accumulates whilst on said holiday. Here’s a whopper of a belated post. What follows is an account of events you may find interesting (or amusing, or frustrating).

Here’s a portion of a recent press release from the media office at Virginia Tech, regarding our making the "Green Honor Roll."

BLACKSBURG, Va., April 25, 2012 – For the third consecutive year, Virginia Tech ranks among the most environmentally responsible colleges in the United States and Canada, according to the Princeton Review, receiving the highest possible score given by the organization.

The Princeton Review’s Guide to 322 Green Colleges: 2012 Edition, released April 17, profiles institutions of higher education that demonstrate a notable commitment to sustainability in their academic offerings, campus infrastructure, activities, and career preparation. The Princeton Review, in collaboration with the Center for Green Schools at the U.S. Green Building Council, evaluates colleges and universities and assigns a numerical score on a scale of 60 to 99. 

Virginia Tech received a score of 99, earning the distinction as one of 16 colleges to be named to the Princeton Review’s 2012 Green Rating Honor Roll. 

“Virginia Tech continues to be totally committed to campus sustainability," said Denny Cochrane, Virginia Tech’s sustainability program manager. "Our inclusion on the Green Rating Honor Roll shows how wide spread the commitment is among out students, faculty, staff, alumni, and university leadership."

********

The story of “Stadium Woods” is interesting and complex.  Virginia Tech Athletics announced the construction of an indoor practice facility for football on part of an 11-acre wooded site, behind Lane Stadium and abutting the current practice field (hence “stadium woods”).  The campus Landscape Architect brought it up at a meeting with the campus Arboretum Committee, who were not thrilled. Virginia Tech has followed a plan of very concentrated/intense land use to keep everything within walking/running distance for the students, and this was one of the few wooded areas left.

The committee proposed an alternative site a few hundred yards away, with the new facility replacing some tennis courts and a roller-hockey rink. 

This suggestion was not met with great enthusiasm by the Athletics department.

Two possible sites for indoor practice facility, adjacent to practice field where 200-300 year old trees are, or along Washington Street on top of some tennis courts (also possibly 200 years old).

At that point, an immense hoo-ha began that would stretch over a year.  I’m going to leave out the ensuing committee/administrator/athletics blow-by-blow, but in a nutshell, some of the Forestry faculty determined this was not just “woods” but a rare stand of old-growth forest, and the Athletics folks were insistent “this is absolutely the best place for the facility!”   Football is huge at Virginia Tech, thus anything described as giving an edge in recruiting gets maximum priority.  In the event of a thunderstorm, having the student-athletes run an additional 150 yards from the practice field to the alternative indoor facility location was just not acceptable. Other issues included digging up a ton of infrastructure (steam lines, electric, etc.) that runs along the road, plus the height of the proposed building does not conform to the campus Master Plan (since it’s for football, it has to be be tall enough to kick a field goal in. We really do need a lot of practice at that.) Guesstimates are around $1million increase to account for the infrastructure issue (added to the $15 million estimate for construction).

A community group “Save Stadium Woods” was formed, complete with a (very nice) website and a letter-writing campaign to the local newspaper. There were petitions, resolutions from everybody and their mother, and more.  The local coverage was intense plus there was a letter to the editor in nearly every newspaper issue for the past three months. CNN even covered the story, which was great, as no campus shootings were involved for the first time in a
620
while.  One of the 300+ year old white oaks was named “Stephen Colbert” in an effort to raise awareness (?!?).  

An ad-hoc committee of university administrators, both Athletics and non-, plus interested parties from both the faculty and the community was charged by the President to come up with a solution. 

And of course, a third-party consultant was brought in, because we apparently don’t have enough smart people here on campus.

Yes, quite the head-scratcher… place the building and site footprint on top of 3 acres of steeply-sloped, old-growth forest? Or remove some aging and underused tennis courts, which could be relocated to the intramural athletics area on the fringe of campus. Yet Athletics continued to argue, and University administration was silent.

The committee weighed in a week ago, coming to the logical conclusion of protecting the woods and utilizing the tennis court site.  I guess the weirdest part of this is that something so no-brainer-ish was allowed to drag on and on, giving our beloved Virginia Tech and so-called “Green University” (complete with TreeCampus USA designation) a black eye. 
<p

Groundcovers for gaps

I promised on last week’s post that I’d mention some other low-input methods of keeping weeds out of the gaps between paving stones.  Here are a few photos of my own yard, where we’ve been installing flagstone pathways and terraces.  (Money-saving hint: check out craigslist and/or freecycle for free pavers and other types of stone.  We got all of ours free – just had to pick them up.)

We bought flats of groundcovers, such as woolly thyme, Irish moss, and blue star creeper.  In sunny areas, these plants thrive and spread quickly. But in shadier, moister areas they haven’t done so well.  Instead, we’ve allowed nature to fill the gaps for us.  Naturally occurring mosses, ferns, and other small plants keep out annoying weeds yet are small and attractive in their own right.

You can jumpstart the process by making a moss “milkshake” to spread between pavers.  There are recipes on the web, so I won’t bother repeating them here.  I prefer to let nature take its course (or maybe I’m just lazy).

Hot new method of weed control?

There’s a new report out from University of Copenhagen on killing weeds between paving stones. What they recommend is burning or steaming the weeds lightly and repeatedly. Boiling water, steam, even flamers can be used to wilt the leaves over the course of several treatments (six was recommended). This process damages the leaves beyond repair, slowly starving the roots to death.

I’m not sure exactly how I feel about this study (which is getting a lot of attention on the internet). On one hand, it is a chemical-free way to kill weeds…but on the other hand, it’s pretty labor intensive and requires energy inputs for generating heat. Moreover, what does one do once those weeds are gone? Those bare patches of sterilized soil are just going to be recolonized by new weeds.

Several years ago I had a Master’s student look at different methods of killing English ivy. She also tried the steam treatment.  Ivy laughs at steam. Aggressive perennial weeds like English ivy or blackberry or Japanese knotweed are unlikely to be much affected by blanching, and certainly not by half a dozen treatments.

But most of us probably don’t have big, woody-rooted weeds amongst our paving stones.  In my own garden, it’s a mixture of species that fill these gaps and some of them – like mosses and some smaller ferns – I actually enjoy.  So I pull out the things I don’t like, leaving the desirable species to fill in the gaps.  It’s simple and requires no special equipment.

Am I missing something here, or is this really much ado about nothing?

How open-minded are you? No, really.

Admitting you’re wrong is difficult.   For exhibit A see the recent discussion between me and Jeff over alternative nursery containers.  We all like to think we’re open-minded but  when push comes to shove we all end up like the Fonz on Happy Days when it comes time to say ‘I was wrrrrr… I was wrrrr….  I was not exactly right.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk   As scientists we’re supposed to be objective and base our judgments on verifiable data and careful and repeatable observations.  But, as humans, we all have biases and preconceived notions that are hard to get around.

So here’s a challenge for our Garden Professors readers (and my fellow  GP’s too).  Give an example of a case where you’ve changed your mind about a landscape or gardening practice or product.  And what did it take to change your way of thinking and make you say, “Ya know, maybe I was not exactly right.”

I’ll start.  I have long been dubious about is the use of plant growth retardants (PGR’s) on landscape plants.  PGR’s are chemicals that reduce plant growth, usually by inhibiting shoot elongation.  There are a variety of PGR’s on the market but most work by inhibiting plant growth hormones such as gibberilin or auxins.  PGR’s have long been used by bedding plant producers to make plants more compact and easier to handle and ship.  One PGR, paclobutrazol, has been heavily marketed in recent years to control growth in landscape trees and shrubs.  The effectiveness of paclobutrazol at controlling plant growth has been well established in the literature, though there are some exceptions.  My long-held skepticism toward the landscape application of PGR’s stems from a couple factors.  First, the marketing claims are pretty fantastic: Not only does it control growth but it improves drought tolerance, heat tolerance, insect resistance, and disease resistance (no word on how it does on getting spots out of rugs).  Second, just because something works on containers of annuals in a greenhouse doesn’t mean it will work on trees and shrubs in the field with variable soils, weather, etc.  Third, why bother?  If something is growing too fast; back off the fertilizer, head it back with the Felco’s, or take it out and put something more appropriate there.

What changed my mind.  I’ve seen a couple of effective applications of PGR’s on trees and shrubs that have made me re-evaluate my opinion.  One was at a program at the Indiana Arborists Association a couple years ago.  The study tracked pruning cycles following utility line clearance pruning.  They found that treating trees with paclobutrazol following pruning reduced re-sprout growth and extended the cycle time between pruning by 2 to 3 years – which is a big deal to utility arborists.  More recently, I’ve been observing shrubs here on campus that our landscape service group has been treating with paclobutrazol after pruning.  Typically many shrubs are rejuvenated after pruning and put on a big flush of growth.  The PGR application was effective in keeping this in check.  (Some examples with burning bush appear below). Even to my highly skeptical eye, the treated plants just looked a heck of lot better than the untreated.

Do I believe all the marketing claims made about PGR’s for landscape plants?  No. But for extending pruning cycles and keeping plants in check, I have to admit I was not exactly right. 


Burning bush with PGR app.


Burning bush without PGR app. (Note treated and untreated were growing in same bed)

By controlling growth after pruning PGR application can help keep these shrubs in line and lengthen the time between pruning cycles.

Are Goodies Bad?

I can’t decide if I like the fact that various companies read what I write or not. On the one hand, it’s kind of nice to know they care, but on the other, I kind of like to think that I can talk to people without them hanging over my shoulder.

How do I know they’re there over my shoulder?

They send me stuff.  Sometimes it’s a nasty or "educational" e-mail after I’ve published something about their product that they don’t like, and sometimes it’s a gift bag (or an offer of a gift bag) if I mention that I like something.

I never respond, with one notable exception.  Once I wrote a little something on bees for a newspaper and a small honey operation went out of their way to drop off some honey for me at the front desk.  I thought that was really nice so I wrote them a quick thank-you. 

I wrote something nice about Milorganite recently and they sent me a ballcap, some pens, and samples — along with some literature.  That was nice, but I feel like it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to write back.  I do like Milorganite, but if I start to think of them as my "friends" I don’t know how impartial I’ll be able to be if I find something out that changes my opinion.  I will use the free sample though.

On the boo-hiss side I had the lawyer from company in town call a newspaper where I published a story recently to tell them I got my facts wrong and that they needed to publish a retraction.  The company was wrong though — so no retraction was published, but it was still odd to have a lawyer get involved like that.  Will I think twice about talking about that company’s product in the future?  Not consciously.  But subconsciously?  Who knows (shoot — subconsciously it might make me talk about them more — I don’t know).

The Pop-n-Drop method of planting shrubs

One of the planting practices that severely vexes me is the Pop-n-Drop (TM) method, where plants are popped out of the container and dropped into a hole roughly the same size.  When I’m lucky enough to find such installations in progress, I try to take as many photos as possible for later comparisons.  Here’s one such landscape that was installed in this manner:


A row of Pop-n-Drops in 2002

And here’s the same landscape 10 years later:


Two rows of Pop-n-Drops in 2012

Some of the shrubs survived, some did not, and certainly none of them are thriving.  You can see that the shrubs have remained about the same height after a decade of “growth.” Yet this practice continues to be SOP for many landscaping companies all in the name of shaving off a few minutes of labor and making a few more $$.

We GPs can (and do!) disagree about how much root preparation is needed before planting containerized and B&B trees and shrubs.  But I don’t think any of us would recommend NO root preparation.

(Additional note:  the “before” photo is the side of the landscape that faces west.  Those shrubs are gone.  The “after” photo is facing south (this is a corner lot).  All of the landscapes were put in at the same time, in the same fashion.  Unfortunately I didn’t take photos of the south facing landscape when it was put in, and the one that failed on the west was replaced before I knew it had died.  Sorry for not including this explanation initially.)

And here is the 2012 landscape from a closer viewpoint; note the dead shrub on the left end of the lower row.  The others are all failing, in both this row and the upper row:

Foiled again!

A while back I was talking smack with Sandy G. in the comment section of some post – about how I was going to have a ripe tomato before the end of May.  I’ve been coddling a plant of ‘Orange Blossom’  since about March – it’s been planted and dug up twice, spending frosty snaps in the greenhouse. But 90% of its life has been in the soil on the South side of our house – so I think this is a legit garden tomato.

I’ve been cheering along the top tomato – it turned yellow two weeks ago and it was just flushing orange – close enough for government work.  The hot dry weekend really helped things along.

Then, tragedy struck.


Blurry, due to hands shaking with rage.

Apparently, it was also ripe enough for a hen with an appetite for destruction.


Perp.

So. Close.

A Horticultural Tour of Washington DC

My wife and I were in Washington DC a few weeks back for a wedding.  I’ve been to DC a handful of times and it is one of my all-time favorite places to visit.  I love history so the memorials, monuments and Smithsonian museums are all high on my list.  But DC has a lot to offer plant geeks as well.  In honor of Memorial Day and the unofficial start of summer vacation season, here are my top three DC Horticultural Highlights.

National Botanic Garden.  Located nearly adjacent to the US Capitol, the Botanic Garden is easy to miss if you’re not looking for it.  The garden is comparatively small but offers a nice respite from the hustle and bustle (and interminable school groups) of the rest of the National Mall.  It’s also a cooler oasis to beat the heat if you visit the Mall in the summer and offers some unique views of the Capitol.  The conservatory has great on-going and rotating exhibits.  A current one was on medicinal plants.

The National Arboretum.  The Arboretum is a little more of challenge to get to and probably best if you have a car.  Some highlights include the Gotelli collection of dwarf conifers, the grove of state trees, and The National Bonsai & Penjing Museum.  Be sure to check on hours of operation before you go.  The first time I visited the Arboretum I arrived at 4:30 thinking I would have a several hours of prime late afternoon and evening light for pictures, only to find out they closed at 5:00.

Arlington Cemetery. Arlington is a special place is so many ways.  If you’re an American, these are images steeped in our collective consciences; the tomb of the Unknowns, the Kennedy gravesites, the Challenger memorial, and tens of thousands of headstones marking those that gave the last full measure of devotion.  The grounds are wonderfully tended and, like the Botanic Garden, provide a break from the din on the nearby National Mall.  The Cemetery grounds include dozens of memorial trees and several state Champion trees. Motorized trams are available but if you can walk a couple miles it’s a fascinating and moving place for a stroll.  Arlington is easily accessible by DC Metro or walk across the Memorial Bridge at the Lincoln Memorial end of the Mall.

Stuck in the 1950s

Today I’m going to throw up a post that’s a little link-heavy, but I encourage you to follow these links because they show how prevalent the technology is that I discuss.  And a trip to the garden center will quickly show how infrequently this technology is used.

It’s frustrating.

Why the heck do we still buy plants grown in containers using 1950s technology?  I was reading Bert’s post this week about how to treat container grown trees before planting and also considering a somewhat similar experiment which I conducted about a year ago (stats are in and support my points in that article), and I couldn’t help asking, why do we put ourselves through it? 

The technology is out there for us to produce great root systems by using new types of pots that have become available over the last few years. Look up High Caliper Growing System, Rootmakers (which also includes RootTrappers — we’ve been using these for years), Smart Pots, Superoots, — and there are other systems out there too – all of these systems greatly reduce circling roots and are relatively easy to use.

Do we ask for record players or black and white TVs when we go to the electronics store?  No!  We want MP3 players and big flat screens.  So why are we content with plants grown in containers that come straight from 1954 in our garden centers? 

If we would just start to demand that garden centers and nurseries provide container grown plants with better root systems we’d get them – because they are out there.  But we need to be proactive or we’ll be stuck in the past forever.

Podcast: Subarctic Gardening

Earlier this spring I spoke to the Alaska Master Gardeners at their annual meeting in Anchorage.  I’d not been to Alaska before this, so I was on a steep learning curve most of the time.  It was fantastic.

In any case, I thought it would be fun to do a podcast on gardens and landscapes at high latitudes.  And if you’ve ever wondered what, exactly, you can grow at 51N latitude, you’ll find out