The Garden Professors™

Yesterday I happened to see a garden calendar encouraging people to pick up their leaves so that they don’t pollute streams and lakes by encouraging algae to grow.  This was a good idea, I thought, but then I started to wonder whether leaves on the lawn might not be a better idea?  After all, the reason that leaves cause algal growth in water is because of the nutrients they have.  And if they have nutrients couldn’t those be used for fertilizer instead of the regular fertilizers which we use?  What if we raked all of our leaves onto our yards?

There’s no denying that leaves which drop in the fall can make great compost, but how well would they work as a fertilizer? So I did a little bit of preliminary research — reading old papers and such — and here’s what I’ve come up with:

Fallen leaves are very variable in nutrient content.  Some leaves have 1% nitrogen, and some can have almost 3% (these are mostly from leguminous trees).  In terms of phosphorus, fallen leaves tend to have around 0.1%, though once again, it’s very variable.   For the purposes of this post I’m going to stick with nitrogen.

For 1,000 square feet of grass yard it takes about a pound of nitrogen per year to fertilize, even with a low input variety.

In a heavily wooded lot it wouldn’t be odd to have around 100 pounds of leaves fall in a 1,000 square foot area.  At 1% nitrogen, the leaves would provide enough nitrogen for the grass, but that would probably end up being a moot point because the leaves would have a good chance of smothering the grass. 

So what I’m wondering is, if we planted trees which were legumes, and had higher levels of nitrogen, and if we chopped up the leaves so they weren’t as likely to smother the grass (using a lawnmower or whatever) could we provide enough nitrogen per year for a healthy low input lawn?  Personally, I think so.  We would need to keep these leaves off of driveways and sidewalks because this is where they would do their worst in terms of contaminating water, but if they were just in yards — I think it might work.

As an Extension Specialist working with nursery and landscape issues, I’m frequently called upon to troubleshoot problems with trees and shrubs in various settings.  Sometimes it’s residential or commercial landscapes, sometimes nurseries, sometimes Christmas trees.  So naturally I was intrigued when the most recent issue of American Nurseryman featured a cover story on diagnosing nutrient deficiencies in plants.  The article was written by Dr. Gary Gao, Extension specialist with Ohio State University.  The article http://www.amerinursery.com/article-7428.aspx is good and does a good job on covering the basics.  However, the introduction of the article also hit on one of my pet peeves – and what is the Garden Professors for if not to vent on our pet peeves.

The intro states:

"If you have a good understanding of the function of plant essential mineral elements and a familiarity with common symptoms, common mineral nutrient disorders can be diagnosed quite easily."

Maybe I’m just trying to justify my own existence, but I find diagnosing nutrient disorders anything but easy.  This article and countless extension bulletins and factsheets imply that you can diagnose nutrient problems simply by matching leaves from your tree or shrub to a photograph showing the same symptoms.  To which I have three words: Ain’t gonna happen.  For the upper Midwest, I can think of exactly two landscape nutrition problems that I would be comfortable diagnosing by visual symptoms; iron chlorosis in pin oak and manganese deficiency in red maple.  Beyond those two I would want information from foliar samples and soil tests, as well as some site information before concluding the cause of a plant problem.

The main issue, of course, is that plant problems rarely come gift-wrapped.  Nutrient deficiencies (or, rarely, toxicities) are often confounded with other site issues; poor drainage, excessive drainage, too much sun, too much shade, insect damage, diseases, salt exposure.  As I’ve said many times, it’s much rarer to find a ‘smoking gun’ than not.  Usually it’s process of elimination with a best case scenario where you can compare symptom and foliar analyses of  ‘good’ and ‘bad’ plants.  But I think we do a disservice to landscape and nursery professionals and homeowners to imply that identifying the cause of a problem is as simple as picking the right suspect out of a line-up. 

OK, the results are in for our reader poll to design a landscape tree transplant study here at MSU next spring.  And the winner is…er, I mean, winners are: Root ball manipulation and Fertilization at the time of planting.  Root ball manipulation drew 74.3% of the responses, Fertilization was chosen by 63% (voters could chose more than one favorite topic).  All other proposed topics were under 40% (Mycorrhizae – 37%, Crown reduction- 31%, Cambistat – 11.4%, Bioplex – 11.4%).  I will put pencil to paper and survey the trees and space available for a trial.  My initial thought is that we can do a 3 x 2 factorial experiment with 3 types of root-ball manipulation and 2 levels of fertilization.  Root-ball manipulations will include two popular recommendations: 1 – ‘shaving’ the root-ball to remove circling roots; 2 – ‘teasing’ the root-ball to untangle circling roots; and 3 control e.g., planting the root-ball as is.  The two fertilizer treatments will be 1 – 400 grams Osmocote and 2 – control, no fertilization.  The goal is for this to a long-term study – hopefully at least 5-years.  The principal response variables will be survival and growth.  If time and resources allow we will collect water relations data such as water potential and stomatal conductance during the transplant year. 

I was a little surprised that Cambistat did not rate higher.  This product has been heavily marketed to arborists and has been touted to reduced transplant stress.  The active ingredient, paclobutrazol, is a well-known plant growth retardant.  The theory is that it reduces stress by limiting crown expansion and reducing stomatal conductance while roots continue to develop.  I’ve actually been a bit intrigued and may set up a little side study to satisfy my own curiosity.

Thanks to all who took the time to vote.  I look forward to keeping you all posted on the trials!