Garden Rant

As pollinators for a native plant garden, honey bees suck!

Guest Rant by David Schmetterling, Montana Wildlife Gardener

That’s right, they suck.  Someone had to say it.

If you want honey bees (Apis mellifera) for say, I don’t know, honey- that is great.  No problem.  If you have converted a heterogeneous, beautiful landscape of native plants and wildlife into a monoculture for crop production, and every plant requires pollination in the same, narrow, discrete window, honey bees are for you.

However, if you are interested in any of the following:  biodiversity, bee conservation, pollinator conservation and diversity, wildlife gardening, native plant landscaping, getting your native plant garden pollinated, or just plain learning about the really cool insects in your garden, then yes, honey bees suck.

Somewhere along the way of promoting awareness of pollinators and their role in plant, wildlife and bee conservation, people wove in honey bees.  This is really unfortunate, so I am trying to set the record straight. 

In our garden I have collected over 150 species of bees and “pollinators” and one of those species is honey bee.  In fact, honey bees in our garden are pretty uncommon, especially outside a narrow time of day and time of year.  The diverse species of native pollinators provide so much more than pollination to our garden.  Just as a small example, the larvae of the flower fly (Spilomaya spp.), a yellow jacket mimic, pictured below, are effective predators of aphids in the garden (including our vegetable garden).

I venture that honey bees are pretty ineffectual pollinators of most things- especially native species.  As far as colony collapse disorder, although academically interesting, don’t be fooled: it is not a conservation issue.

Honey bees are native to Eurasia (where most of our noxious weeds are coincidently from), and share no evolutionary history with plants in the U.S., and in particular with plants of the intermountain west of Montana.  Consequently, they are not effective pollinators of the diverse native plants we have here. They will only pollinate over a narrow range of dates and temperatures, and can only exploit certain sizes and shapes of plants.  Again, too narrow a range to be effective. 

For example, in the Missoula valley, and in my garden, spring arrives with sagebrush buttercups (Ranunculus glaberrimus) that flower in late February or early March.  They often arrive when snow still covers the ground and most days are barely above freezing, and the blooms can be rapid.  This time of the year, nary a honey bee is in sight or even able to survive - these blooms predate the hives trucked in from the south.  Native flowers come and go, blooming across different days (and some only at night) from snowy spring until late October, long after the honey bees head back down south or hunker down trying to survive.

Even as temperatures become more appealing to honey bees, morning and evening can be too cool for them to do much of anything beyond surviving.  Sure, on a warm July afternoon, honey bees will be out in force pollinating some things, but they don’t do much.  Our native pollinators, including moths, butterflies, bees, flies, beetles, ants, and others are so diverse in terms of habitats they occupy, body sizes and morpholoogy, that they can pollinate and exploit a diversity of native plants that no truckload of honey bee hives consisting of identically sized and shaped honey bees could even imagine.

So, yes, honey bees are great for producing honey.  They are great for pollinating commercial crops (though their value is probably grossly overstated), but they have little place in conservation and little room in my garden.

Federal landscapes go sustainable

Somehow I missed some really big news - the October 31 announcement of new requirements for federal landscapes.  Should I blame the less than eye-catching announcement itself, shown above?  Or maybe the administration is trying to keep this tree-hugging move under the radar.  Whatever - it's great news!

Warning to readers: we're about to get wonky here. 

First promised in the fall of '09, the feds have completed the monumental task of compiling the  Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes.

This guidance is to be used by Federal agencies for landscape practices when constructing new, or rehabilitating existing, owned or leased facilities, or when landscaping improvements are otherwise planned.

The Federal government controls or owns more than 41 million acres of land and 429,000 building assets, comprising 3.34 billion square feet of space in the United States. Consequently, landscaping practices by Federal agencies can have significant impacts on the environment. Decisions regarding the development and maintenance of Federal landscaped property provide an opportunity to promote the sustainable use of water and land, conserve soils and vegetation, support natural ecosystem functions, conserve materials, promote human health and well-being, and ensure accessibility for all users, including those with disabilities.

First, try to imagine all federal buildings being surrounded by landscapes that actually do all of the above.  Think post offices, courthouses, military facilities, and so on.  Not just owned land but leased, too.  That means that any developers hoping to someday find a federal tenant will presumably follow these guidelines.

Will we no longer see new courthouses like this or White House scenes like this?

"Reduce, with aim to eliminate, the use of potable water, natural surface water (such as lakes, rivers, and streams), and groundwater withdrawals for landscape irrigation."  Just reading that one detail, I imagine the increased use for drought-tolerant groundcovers and decreased acreage of conventional turf.

In the realm of plant choice, here's what the guidance says:

• Preserve existing native vegetation
• Maintain existing historic landscapes and plantings
• Prevent, detect, control, and manage invasive plants
• Maintain existing historic landscapes and plantings
• Use native plants: Where practicable, use vegetation native to the ecoregion. (Note: not just "native", but "to the ecoregion".)
• Use vegetation to minimize building heating and cooling requirements
• Use trees and other vegetation to offset emissions of greenhouse gases from operations
• Reduce urban heat island effects
• Reuse salvaged materials and plants
• Support sustainable practices in plant production
• Use regional materials

And there's a whole section on "human health and well-being", nicely echoing the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign:

• Encourage outdoor activities: On-site amenities such as community gardens, bike trails, playgrounds, and workout stations should be provided to encourage outdoor activities. Appropriate support services, such as drinking fountains, emergency call boxes, and safety lighting should also be included. To the extent possible, on-site systems, such as trails and paths, should be connected to local and regional systems and access to parks and open space within 0.25 mile.
• Use vegetation to promote community/employee morale and well-being activities: Rooftop gardens, community gardens, and vertical gardens inside or outside of buildings, adjacent or connecting to the landscape should be considered in order to promote educational programs, food access, and gardening activities for morale and community engagement.
• Create quiet outdoor spaces for relaxation and restoration, small group interaction, and views... Where possible, seating areas with unique or beautiful views and minimal noise should be provided.following actions.

This is so comprehensive, I can't find anything missing - there's even a directive to reduce light pollution.

One sticky wicket must have been the concerns of the historic preservation folks because there's lots about respecting landscapes in "cultural or historic settings".  

Plant materials in cultural landscapes and designed historic sites may be non-native, naturalized and in some cases managed invasive species. Plants that are character-defining features of a cultural landscape should be preserved.

So, English ivy doesn't have to be ripped out where it's deemed historic, I guess.

About maintenance, the directive is to "Implement sustainable site maintenance," which they define as: organic fertilizer, Integrated Pest Management, seasonal performance-based mowing (spring 3”, summer 4-5”, fall 4”), and annual pruning practices, as opposed to regular shearing.  Also, recycling of organic matter (another term for composting?)

Sorry to report, leaf-blowers aren't outlawed but there is a directive to "increase fuel economy through acquisition of smaller vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles, and alternative fuels vehicles and landscape equipment." That's something.

Questions
I have lots of them, like: How will this be enforced?  And how much will existing landscapes be changed by this?  And just curious: Would the EPA headquarters' low-impact landscaping comply, or does it have too many nonnative plants? 

Readers, add your questions and comments and I'll try to get them answered - first by contacting the good folks at the U.S. Botanic Garden who shepherded this project through the bureaucracy.  Thirty-one federal agencies participated in the process, plus 13 "advisors representing local and regional constituencies."  Can you imagine how many meetings that meant having to endure? 

The Brand New USDA Hardiness Map: Already Out of Date?

Meet David W. Wolfe, Cornell plant scientist and expert on the impacts of climate change on agriculture. Wolfe is also the author of an absolutely delightful book about the soil, Tales from the Underground: A Natural History of Subterranean Life, that ought to be required reading for all gardeners.

In the 2011 Timber Press title The New American Landscape: Leading Voices on the Future of Sustainable Gardening, Wolfe wrote the chapter on gardening and climate change. This week, I called him up to ask about the new USDA hardiness zone map, after I looked up my own zone and got a result that in no way corresponds with current reality. Zone 5a?  Maybe 20 years ago, but not now. (For more about the map, see Elizabeth's post here.)

Q: The old zone map was based on a 13-year average of winter minimum temperatures from 1974 to 1986. The current map is based on a 30-year average that reaches all the way back to 1976. In a time of rapid winter warming, how does looking at this longer time scale make any sense?

A:  First, hats off to the USDA for doing a new map.  We haven't had an official one since 1990 and a lot of nurseries and commercial growers have been waiting a long time for a new map. Why the USDA chose a 30-year average, I don't know. It means we can't really compare it to the past map.  

And since the spans overlap, a good percentage of the data in the new map was already in the old map. This dampens the perception of change.

Of course, there is the argument that looking at a bigger swath of time is more reliable. On the other hand, we know we are on a trajectory, so a longer time span will dilute more recent changes. A 15 year-map would have been preferable in my opinion.

That said, the map still shows a significant shift towards higher average minimum winter temperatures in the Northeast and Ohio, as well as other places.  The map corroborates changes we are seeing in the living world, as plants bloom earlier, as insects appear earlier, as their ranges move northwards.

For conservative gardeners, this map is fine.

Adventuresome gardeners, on the other hand, would probably prefer something else. In fact, in 2002, the New York Botanical Garden planted a test garden in the Bronx of plants hardy only to a zone warmer than its zone on the 1990 map. These plants are all doing fine.

Q: Though I'm delighted that warming winters make similar experiments plausible in my own yard, your chapter in The New American Landscape makes it clear that climate change is not all fun and games.  We're all probably aware that warmer winters mean new pests, but you mention other effects, such as "de-hardening" during winter warm spells.

A: Well, when you say "pests," your readers probably think of insects, but warmer winters are also really great for deer. Without a long period of snow cover when they can't feed, they have better survival rates, produce more young, and are likely to want more food from your garden.  

About "de-hardening": The buds and stems of perennial plants go through a physiological hardening process so they are protected from winter damage. If they "de-harden" during a warm spell, then the threshold for winter damage is at a higher temperature. In the winter of 2003-2004, we had a very warm December in upstate New York and then cold temperatures in January. It caused millions of dollars' worth of damage to new plantings of European wine grapes  It wiped them out down to the ground. In late winter, a warm period can cause a premature leafing out and frost damage.

Many perennials also have a chilling requirement that may not be met in future, so they may not be able to produce a good amount of flowers and fruit. Apples, for example, have a long winter chilling requirement: 1200 hours with temperatures below 45 degrees. So do our native Concord grapes. On the other hand, European wine grapes, Vitis vinifera, have much less of a chilling requirement.  We may be growing more of those.

Q:  In The New American Landscape, you recommend "cautious exploration" with less hardy plants on the part of gardeners.  Why not wild experimentation? 

A: Actually, gardeners can lead the way here, figuring out how we can take advantage of the opportunities offered by a warming climate, because it's not their entire livelihood at stake, as with farmers.  Maybe we need VIctory Gardens in a new context, that of climate change.

Scotts MiracleGro and the National Wildlife Federation have Partnered Up

Almost two years ago we posted the news that the National Wildlife Federation was seeking input about possibly partnering up with various corporations, including such known wildlife-huggers as Ortho, Scotts Miracle-Gro and Spectracide.  Your comments were pretty darn negative, but seem to have gone unheeded.  Scotts DOES have tons of money, after all.

Here's the story.

After announcing the programs that Scotts will be funding, the company reinforces its "similarities" to NWF.

"During our support of the NWF's wildlife relief work in the Gulf of Mexico, we realized how many similarities our organizations shared – and started exploring ways to work together," said Jim Lyski, executive vice president, ScottsMiracle-Gro. "NWF offers a unique perspective that we believe can help shape our sustainability initiatives, and proactively engage thought leaders on constructively developing solutions to environmental and societal challenges. This partnership for us is about building a business that leaves our world better off than we found it."

Garden products from the bad old days

I'm packing up to move, so it's time to decide which of these gardening products I'll be taking with me and which deserve to be sealed tightly at the bottom of a landfill somewhere.  In my defense, I bought most of these 15-25 years ago, before I knew enough to question the safety of all this stuff, or even the need for them.  Before I'd gotten religion in the garden.

 

Here's the Dirty Two Dozen or so.  Readers, would you take any of these with you to your next garden?  (I'll venture a keep-worthy list below)

Insecticides

• Liquid Sevin
• Sevin Dust
• Ortho Systemic Insect Killer
• Spectracide Insect Control
• Ortho Orthene Systemic insect Control
• Quick-Kill Mosquito pellets
• Dragon Cygon 2-E Systemic Insecticide
• Safer Caterpillar Killer
• Bon-Neem Insecticidal Soap
• Bonide All-Seasons Spray Oil

Herbicides

• Ortho Weed-B-Gon - 3 of them
• Ortho Poison Ivy and Oak Killer - 2 cans
• Ortho Grass-B-Gone
• Ortho Triox Vegetation Killer
• Bonide stump and Vine Killer
• Various formulations of Round-up - 4 of them.  (Why all the duplicates?  One messy toolshed.)

 

Fungicides

• Ortho Funginex Rose Disease control
• Dragon Copper Fungicide
• Infuse Systemic Disease Control
• Dragon Benomyl Disease Control
• Ortho Multi-Purpose Fungicide

Fertilizers

• Ortho Rose Pride
• Miracle Gro Rose Food
• Dynamite Fertilizer

Plus 2 bottles of the unclassifiable FreezePruf and not pictured, three different deer repellent products.  And sitting in my garage is a bag of Hollytone.

Proposed Keepers

• Neem insecticidal soap - it's fairly harmless, right?  And who knows what critters await me in my next garden?
• Bonide All-Seasons Spray Oil - ditto.
• Hollytone

Pretty short list.  I'll happily donate my deer sprays to neighbors, since there aren't any where I'm going.  Ditto the Round-up, since I'm leaving behind the scourge of poison ivy - the one plant I used it on. 

Golf course chooses toxic pesticide over the environment, neighbors, etc.

Deciding to use a long-banned pesticide, despite its proven harm to the environment and the ire of neighbors?  So stupid, but it's only thanks to one insider that there's a chance to convince the golf course not to do it.

Here's an editorial in the Washington Post about the club's plan to pump methyl bromide into the soil.

Reading the club's "About Us" on their website, I feel a bad case of reverse snobbery coming on.  Here's a taste:

Members embrace a shared tradition of congeniality, high standards of personal conduct and continuity of family association. The celebration of family, a tradition of civility and a commitment to excellent facilities and services will always be the hallmarks of the Chevy Chase Club.

At least they don't hypocritically claim to care about being good stewards of the land.  Or being inclusive, for that matter.  (Lord no - this club has been accused of racism repeatedly.)

Doug Tallamy disproves opposing myths about native plants

Doug Tallamy, everyone's favorite entomologist/native-plant advocate, is one of the contributors to a new book about sustainable gardening (edited by Tom Christopher, and to be reviewed here soon). First he makes the case that if you care about insects, the birds that feed on them and, heck, all of nature, you'll grow some native plants, dammit, not just lawn and a few foundation plants. Nobody makes that case better than Tallamy.

He first made that case to the general public in his popular Bringing Nature Home,  published in 2007, and he's had time to observe reactions to it and to the native-plant movement generally.  For example:

There are many misconceptions about using native plants as landscape plants, but one of the most pervasive is the fear that natives will be defoliated by the very insects we are trying to attract with them.  After all, that's one of the reasons "pest-free" plants from Asia and Europe appear to be the logical choice.

I've heard that one, but what I've heard and read much more often is the exact opposite claim - that native plants are the "pest-free" ones because they've evolved in harmony with the pests, etc.  Which is hard to square with the urgings that we plant natives so the native insects can eat them, which they certainly do.

But guess what - both myths are wrong!  According to Tallamy, native plants attract plant-eating pests but they also attract a diversity of predators, parasites and diseases that keep insect populations in check.  Sounds great, but can he prove it?

Yes, indeed, he can.  He convinced one of his grad students to make a study of insect damage, comparing "traditional" with all-native landscapes - six of each.  After two years, the result was that only a tiny percentage of leaves were damaged on EITHER of the properties, with 1.5% of the leaves showing sucking damage and 4.5% chewing damage, both far below than the 10% damage threshold shown to be needed before homeowners notice it.  And the difference between the native and mostly-nonnative landscapes was statistically insignificant.

This study not only levels the pest-damage field between native and nonnative plants but does it in a way that avoids the messy questions about whether the pests are native or nonnative.  It simply records evidence from actual gardens in the 21st Century.  Thank you, Dr. T!

Turf is top topic in my town's parade

You've seen the partying spectators for my town's July 4th Parade.  Now for the turf- and gardening-related floats and people IN the parade.

This group of reel-mowers have been at it for 15 or so years now, way ahead of the rest of the Lawn Reform movement.  I believe their official name includes the term "Precision Drill Team" because they, like the "World Famous Lawn Rangers" that inspired them, have a choreographed routine they're mighty proud of.

The float for the Coalition for Natural Sports Fields was a new one this year and they have no website, just a Facebook group. There we're told that the group is local to my county and composed of people fighting the threat of synthetic sports fields.  Since it's odd to see a pro-turfgrass demonstration these days, especially in this hyper-eco town, I naturally suspect that ChemLawn or a mow-and-blow trade group may be behind this, looking to improve their image and hold onto their sports-field business. I joined the Facebook group, wrote to the administrators for more info, and to date have received no response, so I'm standing by my cynicism.

In the photos above and left, the local organic food co-op came out in force to encourage gardening, as well as ride-sharing, cycling, water pistols and all manner of good clean fun.

For one small town's parade, there seemed to be a whole lotta turf- and garden-related content.  Even here.

Finally, not specifically garden-related but still in the pro-environment vein, below is the parade's grand marshall - someone thoroughly deserving of this and any other honor that may be bestowed on him.  It's Mike Tidwell, head of Chesapeake Climate Action Network and an increasingly popular spokesman for doing something about climate change. 

As goofy as he looks here, believe me - he's unbelievably articulate, and his clear-eyed focus on stopping the building of MORE coal plants is right-on.  He makes my paltry efforts at making a difference seem, well, paltry.  Thanks, Mike, for making me feel bad about myself all you do.

A green roof with a view

I spotted this in Lake Placid last week. It's prominently placed on a building owned by the Golden Arrow hotel and there's a sign installed near the sidewalk that explains it to visitors. Keep in mind that it is relatively early in the season this far north, so the plantings are not quite filled out. It overlooks Mirror Lake. (Oddly enough, the village of Lake Placid is not built around the actual Lake Placid.)

Just one of many examples of smart gardening I saw in this lovely town.

An Appalling Waste of Horticultural And Scientific Talent? You Betcha

Turf without management

I hate to be shockable at 50--it's unseemly--but I was doing some research yesterday and was shocked to learn that Colorado State University has an entire degree program devoted to "turf management."

This program is taught by actual Ph.D.s.  It leads to glorious management careers, the site informs me, even in this brutal job market.

The thriving turf management industry offers management opportunities ranging from sod production to the establishment and maintenance of private and public grounds. Turfgrass managers are supervisors for golf courses, ski resorts, sports fields, and for park departments. Excellent employment opportunities are available in the areas of lawn care and landscape management.

A similar program is in place at Penn State, which has a full Center for Turfgrass Science, as does Rutgers. Turfgrass management students at Rutgers are eligible for scholarships funded by pesticide makers Bayer and Syngenta.

Seriously? 

The world is running out of arable land.  We've had food riots in developing countries in recent years.  Global warming appears to be unstoppable.  The American Southwest threatens to turn into a dust bowl.  Pesticides are implicated in a host of diseases.

And you want to spend four or more years learning how to pour water, artificial nitrogen manufactured from fossil fuels, and soil-deadening pesticides onto turfgrass mowed with giant gasoline guzzling machines?  In order to make 75 year-old golfers who don't care about the future happy? 

Wouldn't it be more socially productive to get a degree in Croupier Sciences?  Sex Worker Management? Pyramid Schemes?

Contribute to Landscape for Life

Yes, I'm plugging the new Landscape for Life - the homeowner's version of the Sustainable Sites Initiative - yet again.  But this time it's to encourage you to send them your suggestions for additions or revisions - to [email protected]  Author Janet Marinelli assures me that it's very much a work in progress and they welcome our ideas.

Here's my review again, but what's yours?  Tell 'em~!

The EPA has it in for your lawn

Speaking of lawns, check out the big story in today's Post about EPA going after the pollutants that people dump on their lawns.  Also, probably requiring that homeowners and developers retain stormwater on site, or slow it down a lot.  There's talk of daylighting waterways that are now tunneled. 

And the blowback has begun - from developers, from the lawn service industry and from Big Chem, all of whom have lobbyists.  The environmentalists are unhappy, too, and email groups are buzzing with complaints that the article paints native plantings as scruffy and abandoned-looking, and overstates the cost of rain gardens.  (Guilty on both charges). 

Landscape for Life - a Review

 


Remember the Sustainable Sites Initiative?  It set eco-standards for landscapes the way LEED does for buildings, and was a collaborative project of the U.S. Botanic Garden, Johnson Wildflower Center and ASLA.  This post about it included the good news that a homeowner version was in the works - well, it's here and it's called Landscape for Life. So let's look inside, shall we?

My favorite things

• Landscape for Life emphasizes all the ecological services performed by healthy landscapes – like storing water, flood control, and enhancing human health and well-being.
• The website is pretty (though more photos of examples would be nice).  And the message is  pro-beauty, stressing that landscapes need to be good-looking. (Yes, it really says that!)
• It encourages us to create outdoor spaces for games, for socializing, for quiet relaxation and for growing food.  It's all too rare to see human needs and desires mentioned in writings about "green gardening," so kudos!
• It's very practical, even including advice about construction materials.
• The section on pesticides is excellent, stressing that organic gardening means more than just switching to different products.
• It encourages the use of native plants but takes an inclusive approach to plant origin (nonnatives aren't condemned). The right plant/right place philosophy is used here, with advice about matching plants to local precipitation patterns.
• It advises choosing the RIGHT native plants, not just any of them.  "Be sure to choose native plants that match the specific conditions at the planting site.”  Which seems obvious to us gardeners but this sensible caveat is seldom included.  Ditto for the fact that native plants need to be tended.
• It's easy to understand, which for an informational resource means it's very well written - by Janet Marinelli.

What I didn't know

• The importance of biomass.  Why do we see so little mention of this?
• Perlite comes from Greece!  Which is just one reason it's not considered sustainable, in addition to the energy required to create it.  Peat moss is also a no-no.  (See the section on sustainable potting mixes.)

Questions and suggestions

"State and local native plant societies are great sources of information on native trees, shrubs, and wildflowers that will thrive in your garden.”  Uh, I wish.  They usually just list ALL native plants, whether or not they're available or do well in landscapes.

And still on native plants, I have a question about this: “For the vast majority of native wildlife, most of the non-native plants we've favored in our landscapes for more than a century do not provide sufficient food, including the insects on which 96 percent of all terrestrial birds depend.”  But doesn't Doug Tallamy tell us that 50 percent of native wildlife are generalists?  

In "Green Your Lawn" (the site's weakest section), I found this: "Because lawn typically requires more water and fertilizer than other parts of the garden and mowing consumes energy and results in pollution, it's best to cut it down to size. Replace all or part of it with more sustainable alternatives." Which makes me wonder: Why not suggest we NOT water and feed our lawns so much, and switch to nonpolluting mowers?  When I had a lawn I watered it less than the rest of my garden, and never fed it. And not all mowers pollute.

In this anti-lawn vein, it's even suggested that lawns be replaced with hardscape, which seems to contradict recommendations elsewhere to beef up our yard's biomass. 

And I'd encourage the author to say more about fertilizing lawns than just “fertilize sparingly and less frequently”.  How about at the right time of the year (spring or fall, for cold or warm season grasses) and what to fertilize WITH, including great options like corn gluten, compost and mulching mowers.  There's no mention of soil tests, or the suggestion that we feed only if our lawn's looking thin and weedy.

In the discussion of alternative types of turfgrass, there's a nice mention of the Grassroots Program in California - it's part of the Lawn Reform Coalition and we love it.  But readers outside California could be helped by a link to the whole (nationwide) Coalition.

Finally, on the subject of finding alternatives to conventional turf-type fescues, we're advised thusly: “Contact your county Cooperative Extension office for more information on which alternative turfgrass varieties are best suited for your area.”  Again, I WISH.

Now readers, check it out for yourselves and weigh in - What do YOU think of Landscape for Life?  It's online, so changes could easily be made.

I think that I shall never see

We use an online form to request trees from the varieties offered, but this one is sort of faked; these addresses really do not need trees. But you have to give an address to get a tree.

Yesterday was tree-planting day in the neighborhood, fall edition, and it had its usual frustrations. This year I noticed that at least one tree that took me a good two hours to plant (getting through some old stump remains) had disappeared—that maybe it hadn’t even lasted a week after I planted it! And we saw that a couple property owners had taken it into their heads to blacktop their easeway/hellstrips/whatever, which is where we plant these municipal trees. And there were a couple difficult spots where a pickaxe had to be employed to clear some debris in the planting hole. Also, the city had not updated its online tree map, so we had to make our own decisions on where the trees were needed—and our own guesses where utility infrastructure had to be avoided.

Here's one we planted last year.

But it could be worse. I had an errand in the burbs after we planted and it took me to a little cul-de-sac where every lawn had the same closely-shaven appearance, there were few trees of any description, and there were no sidewalks. Our median strips might be a bit narrow, and it’s not exactly a blast to take shovel in hand on a chilly November air, but at least our neighborhood looks like a neighborhood and not some kind of Stepford bastion.  The urban tree picture is not perfect by any means—but the alternative is unthinkable.

This year—why not—I handed out bags of species tulips that I had gotten on sale and asked the planters to throw ten or so around every tree. They will provide some interest for a few years as the saplings grow. Also just for fun, here is an interactive project from my husband about trees (kind of). 

Blog Action Day Posts on Water

No, we haven't forgotten what day it is.  First up, I've written a quick post for Blog Action Day about simple lawn care advice, plus some corporate research about Scotts Miracle-Gro. Yes, I'm going there again.

Then I found some nice photos of rain gardens for a garden center I blog for.  Lovely!

Here's a list of other "gardening" blogs participating in Blog Action Day 2010 - only 10 so far today.  But here's the list that comes up when you put "garden" in their search engine - lots of 'em!

Blog Action Day 2010 Tackles Water

It's that time of year again, when bloggers all over the world write about a single topic that maybe needs more attention, and this year it's a big one for gardeners - water. 

Here's a blurb from their website that got my attention:

The average American uses 159 gallons of water every day – more than 15 times the average person in the developing world. From showering and washing our hands to watering our lawns and washing our cars, Americans use a lot of water. To put things into perspective, the average five-minute shower will use about 10 gallons of water. Now imagine using that same amount to bathe, wash your clothes, cook your meals and quench your thirst.

And imagine using lots more 10 gallons to, say, wash a car or keep a lawn green in August.

The big day is Friday, October 15, when over 3,000 (and counting) bloggers will post about water, then park their link back on the Blog Action Day website.  It may or may not make any difference but hey, it's worth a shot.  We just got word that the White House's bloggers will be participating.

I've come to believe that as gardeners, our number ONE environmental job is to manage rainwater responsibly and use water resources responsibly, too. 

So register your blog now, and get that water post written before Friday.  See ya then.

Review and Give-away: Energy-Wise Landscape Design

UPDATE:  Ramble-On Rose wins the book - congratulations!  The random number generator said "16" and her comment is the 16th.  Thanks to everyone for playing, and for your great comments.

A furniture and harpsicord maker in rural Massachusetts takes up the study of landscape design, establishes a residential practice, then gets herself a publisher to spread the gospel of eco-friendly landscaping.  Meet Sue Reed and her excellent book Energy-Wise Landscape Design. 

Don't be misled by the title - it's not just about where to plant shade trees.  It covers the whole eco-waterfront. Buying locally grown plants, avoiding peatmoss, conserving water, improving the soil, filling our gardens with as many large, healthy plants as possible. 

On Lawns
About my pet issue Reed has lots to say and it's a nice chunk of unusually helpful garden writing.  After she stopped mowing 10 years ago, she still has to weed-wack to remove the 6-foot-tall Goldenrods and the woodies, and it's "not a beautiful wildflower meadow,"  but it sure beats lawn.  Love the honesty.  Also, "Taking care of this new landscape might require a bit more attention than you're used to giving your lawn."  She suggests a "tidiness strip" to keep the neighbors happy, and recommends no-mow grass mixes. 

About lawn removal, she raises a problem we'd rather ignore: "The process of eliminating lawn grass can consume quite a lot of energy - either in the equipment that mechanically removes lawn or in the herbicides that chemically remove it."  

Her message isn't anti-lawn but simply: Why have more than you need?  And if you DO have lawn, read her "Five Problems with Conventional Lawn Treatment" and her on-target guide to caring for it responsibly. 

On Native Plants - a Nit-Pick
Reed is a graduate of the Conway School of Landscape Design, which she describes as "very idealistic", and that idealism shows up in her discussion of native plants. "There's no question that using native plants in our landscapes is a way to save energy."  How?" By providing essential services that save on energy (resources, time, money).  But her strict nativism bans even well adapted nonnatives that provide the same services (I'm looking at you, Sedums!) Also not okay are cultivars of native plants - species only.  Her designs use only native plants and clients seek her out for that, so "It's all to the good," she told me on the phone.  Also, "conventional garden beauty" is not her "main focus."

That's fine for the converted but what about the vast majority of potential readers?  Why alienate them by declaring that nonnatives either do nothing for wildlife, or actually harm wildlife by becoming invasive?  We need help choosing from among the thousands of (mostly nonnative) plants on offer - which ones are most self-sustaining, stormwater-retentive, and yes, useful for wildlife.  But to recommend against clover, Hostas, daffodils, Sedums??  (Yes, I'm on a tear for Sedums - more about that coming soon.)

But with that small caveat about a small part of the book, I wholeheartedly recommend Reed's book for covering the eco-landscape in such a readable and (mostly) practical way.

The Give-Away

Leave a comment to win a copy before close of business Wednesday and I'll choose one at random.  Your comment can say anything at all - except please, none of those short and nonsensical spammy ones.  (We've been inundated with spam comments lately, the somewhat smarter kind that responds slightly to the text or photos in the post.  But we're onto you - and we're deleting your spammy URLs!)

I guess I had another mini-rant in me there - sorry about that!

41 parks closing in New York

Original photo by John Stoneman. 

 
And unbelievably, yesterday, the very same day the governor closed them, he attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for a new section of Hudson River Park in Manhattan that had apparently long been scheduled. “It pains me,” he commented.

It may pain him (I doubt it), but it will cause much more pain among the people who actually use these parks across the parts of New York State that our largely downstate-based government doesn’t care about. Not to mention the lost revenue: most of these parks have entry or rental fees for family reunions, camping, boat launching, and so on. I know this because we used to use one of them, Joseph Davis Park, regularly for that purpose. Other parks to be closed in Western New York include Woodlawn Beach, on Lake Erie, and Wilson-Tuscarora, a great place for bird-spotting and wildflower walks. Another shocking closure is the magnificent Chimney Bluffs (shown above, a bit more northeast of us). Thankfully, they are leaving Niagara Falls open, for now.

Parks and politicians don’t really mix. It’s similar to the problem we have getting city officials to recognize the importance of urban gardening. The rooms may not be filled with smoke any more, but it’s still all about rooms, buildings, and power-broking.

The best-case scenario is that the parks will reopen when the state gets a budget (they are over a month past the deadline for setting one). Also, several local municipalities will be keeping the parks that are within their boundaries open on their own dime. The fact is that the state could have found a way to keep these parks open.  Though NY (like many other states) is in big fiscal trouble, these closures seem mainly like a high-profile way for the current administration to lash out at an electorate that is rejecting it. 

Fortunately, we do have a lot of other parks.

There’s always a guy

Or a gal. Behind almost every grand old building, park, or, in this case, nature preserve, there are one or two people who lead the fight to bring a fading treasure back to life and ensure its longevity.

 I’ve watched many a preservation battle here in Western New York—and participated in a few—so I know how difficult it is to convince politicians and their bureaucratic ilk that anything that existed before the era of shopping malls and parking lots is worth saving. It’s the same story everywhere. In all the brochures you pick up at these places, the narrative is almost formulaic: at some point, the value of history, beauty, or natural resource falter. Too often, historic designations are seen as obstacles in the way of progress. Mansions become rooming houses; parks and preserves are sold to developers, mining companies, or logging companies. Well, you all know this stuff. 

So it is a small miracle that the Torrey Pines State Reserve, just north of San Diego, located on prime coastal real estate, surrounded by office parks and subdivisions, is still dedicated to the preservation of its namesake plant, Pinus torreyana, and is still undisturbed except for some trails and unobtrusive signage. Though the land was set aside in 1899, it took many decades of efforts on the part of such local heroes as philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps and naturalist Guy Fleming to ensure that the pines would not be used for firewood or that roads would not cut through the canyons.

The Torrey pine only exists in one other place in the world, Santa Rosa Island, CA. Despite their rarity, I doubt I would have gotten that excited about these trees without their dramatic Pacific backdrop and the wildflowers that grow everywhere around them. It was too early for desert wildflower sightings (farther inland) when we were in California, but Torrey provided some tantalizing hints of what a hillside blanketed in sand verbena or bush sunflower would look like.

You could still say that this preserve is endangered. There is minimal staff; the preserve depends on its volunteer association, who man the visitors’ center, provide tours, help remove exotic plants (we saw some spraying while we were there), and run the educational programming. When nobody feels like doing that anymore, what then? Parks throughout California are cutting back on their hours and closing trails. In New York, the soon-to-be-ex-governor announced a plan to close 50+ parks and historic sites. Without enough Ellen Scripps to go around to save U.S. parks and preserves into the future, one wonders—and hopes for the best. 

The EPA's good move on pesticides

Think that pesticide makers should be required to list not just the so-called "active ingredients" in their products but also the inert ones - like those recently found to be potentially more harmful in Roundup than the glophosate itself?  Then head on over to the EPA to tell them you support this move - that the EPA itself is now proposing.  Here's their press release with the long-overdo but still great news.

Paul Tukey's quick take on this is: "Read it closely; the EPA wants your comments. This is a great opportunity to overturn a decades-long travesty."  Thanks to Paul for keeping us posted about this and really, all news related to pesticides.  Like:

• New pro-business propaganda campaigns.

• And one questionable move by the EPA in the past - approving a pesticide that seems to be killing bees - has recently been overturn in court, thanks to a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council.  Here's the NRDC's press release about it.

I've subscribed to Paul's Safe Lawns Blog and recommend it for news and some ranting, too.