by M.L. Altobelli

What do you do with an old, central Massachusetts farm – much of it poor-quality pasture with depleted soil – that has stayed within one extended family’s responsibility from the beginning? My sister and I, as the next-in-line owners of just such a farm, have accepted the challenge to revitalize the land so that it will produce healthy plants and animals.

By early August of 2011, Squash Tetsukaubuto in the 2010 HK bed has grown over the Yellow Finn potatoes, but we get a crop from both.

Woody End Farm in Westminster, MA, has been open land since the mid 1700s. It now has about 15 acres of “usable” land and used to be part of a much larger farm. The farm includes large areas that are either too dry or too wet for traditional cultivation methods. To achieve the goal of a revitalized and healthy farm, we’ve begun experimenting with Hugelkulture beds – with a nutrient-dense twist.

Hugelkulture (HK) beds are  our version of the middle European concept of mound culture – piling up woody plant residue; covering it with compost, manure, or other organic material; and planting in the middle of it. It could also be looked at as a take off on the concept of nurse logs – burying logs near stressed trees in order to provide both a source of nutrients for beneficial fungi associated with trees and water for both the fungi and the tree roots as the logs decay.

The zucchini, raspberries and potatoes in the 2010 HK bed (shown in mid-August) grow through the straw mulch – mostly duck bedding at this point.

The Woody End HK beds are also built using concepts from nutrient dense farming, an approach that maximizes nutrients in the soil in order to create truly healthy plants and plant roots that lead to the most nutrient-dense food possible. Principles of organic, ecological, and bio-dynamic farming along with the precepts of remineralization all play a role in our efforts to create growing beds that improve the land and provide the healthiest crops possible.

Principles in Practice

The soil at Woody End Farm is predominantly grey podsol clay with a very low pH, around 5.2. Minerals barely register in testing, and overall the land as is does not provide enough nutrients to grow decent crops aside from low bush blueberries, sensitive fern and thimbleberry. The farm, however, offers other resources in the form of surplus organic materials.

In July, Khaki Campbell ducks clean the potato plants of potato beetles and slugs. The plant on the left is the Squash Tetsukaubuto shown in the above photo.

The ice storm of December 2008 left us with piles and piles of wood in the wooded tracts of Woody End. Our animals, one horse (fun!), 14 goats (milk), and four ducks (slug control and eggs), provide a source of manure that’s mixed with wood fiber (shavings or sawdust) and hay. Healthy animals provided with all the minerals required for their optimum health produce a premium manure product. To acquire resources unavailable on the farm, we looked to local sources. We’re incredibly lucky to have a local source (two towns over) of blended or man-made peat/loam blend soil that’s consistent load by load.  We also brought in a load of stone dust from New Hampshire – not so local and the shipping cost as much as the product! This did allow us to add a layer of “raw” stone dust to the developing beds and provide for a good microbial response. We added other specific minerals bought by the bag (50lbs) and mixed into a blend that was added to the beds as well.

Mound-building Steps

In late fall of 2011, we held an ELA Eco-workshop at Woody End Farm and about 13 people came to help us build some new HK beds. The goal for the day was to develop two beds – 30’ long – that stretched across a wet pasture with old failed drainage ditches. The beds were set into the decaying swales and built up from there. Several rainy days preceded the workshop, and the forecast called for snow later in the day, but we pressed ahead anyways (it was a gutsy group that showed up!). The area assigned to the new beds was between a greenhouse, slightly uphill, and two recently dug drainage trenches filled with several inches of water. With the sites identified, work began.

Layer 1: Large logs. Logs, some extremely large, were coated with dolomite limestone and already laid out when the Eco-tour attendees arrived to help build the beds. Logs ranged from 8” to 12” in diameter and were placed such that this initial layer defined the width of the approximately 36” wide beds.

Layer 2: Composted manure. A tractor with a front-end loader scooped manure, composted but relatively fresh, onto the large logs. Everyone helped to rake in the compost, working it into the open areas between the logs. The manure compost will provide nitrogen for the wood’s decomposition and also provide a reserve of phosphorus and potassium. Calcite lime had already been added to the manure as it was cleaned out of the animal pens, so calcium did not have to be added. If we had been using manure that had not had lime added, then we would add a heavy cat’s paw dusting across the whole bed at this point. The manure layer covered the logs with some cores of compost over 12” deep and the tops of the logs covered with about 3”.

Layer 3: More wood. Smaller logs and large branches form the next layer. We selected wood from large piles stacked nearby, and we worked to weave the branches together into the depressions around the first layer of large logs. The lighter wood layer also added to the height of the overall mounds.

Layer 4: More manure. This batch of manure is mostly composted and has also had lime added or we would add lime again at this stage. We raked and pushed the manure through the branches of the preceding layer aiming for a depth of about 4”.

Layer 5: Small branches with leaves attached. Some of this was actually pruning debris from off site work done for the landscaping business. We wove the smaller branches into this layer, raising the height of the mound to approximately 18”.  All of this height will settle over the winter and into the future as the beds both settle and start to break down.

Layer 6: Topsoil. We next raked a layer of the peat/loam blend from Sterling peat into at least a 4” layer over the entire mound, though we try to achieve a 6” layer wherever possible. Wayward branches that extended out of the topsoil layer were clipped and tucked back under the soil.

Layer 7: Stone dust. We spread a thin layer of stone dust, between 1/8” and ¼” over the mound. This layer helps prevent a crust from forming over the loam (any purchased loam is essentially “dead” due to handling and can often create a nasty crust that resists water) and also adds raw material.

Layer 8: Minerals and microbes. Next to the last step!  We mixed a special blend of alfalfa meal, rock phosphate, greensand, and azomite together on a tarp. Once it was blended so that no individual component could be seen, we shoveled a thin layer over the mounds – just a dusting. This is a mix that’s been developed over the years to greatly facilitate the growth of microbes, and we wanted microbes to get started through all of the layers of the mound – including the outermost edges of the bed. The recipe is here.

Layer 9: Adding mulch. This was almost fun after the harder work with the soil and its amendments.  Mulch hay bales were opened up and broken into leaves. We layered the hay pads over the mounds and left the HK mounds to sleep for the winter. This last step was completed just as the snow began to fall for the Halloween storm, and the incoming storm meant we stopped taking pictures! By the next day, the new mounds were covered in 18” of snow.

Taken the third week of August, this late summer photo shows the intensity of the green color, the total lack of mildew, and the large size of squash leaves.

One butternut squash produced 22 fruit, although not all ripened completely. We fed the unripe squash to the goats, so the production wasn’t wasted.

Amanda shows roots from butternut (left) and Japanese pumpkin (right) cleared from the HK beds. These are main roots, not the entire root hair and rhizospere connection. If you look closely, you can see where the root system would have branched and developed real depth.

This massive root system belongs to a pot bound Jaunne Flamme tomato planted in the HK bed as an afterthought in early July. You can see the strength of the stems as they fall away from the roots. All of the garden “clean down” of the 2010 HK bed went into the base of the 2011 beds so as not to waste any of the biosynthesis and bio-availability generated from the first bed.

Positive Results

At the time we held the Eco-workshop, Woody End already had a couple of HK beds that had been built the year before. We wanted to try the concept out and figure out the problems before showing other people how to do it. From those initial beds, we harvested one butternut squash that produced 18 squashes and one Japanese pumpkin that produced over 22 three to four pound “pumpkin” squashes and both tasted fantastic. The mounds also produced other kinds of squash, tomatoes, potatoes, raspberries, and garlic. The Eco-workshop attendees got to take home some of the squashes and potatoes that had been grown on the 2010 mounds, as well as a good-sized bag of the top dress mineral blend for them to experiment with at home.

Future thoughts

This year will be a great chance to check out the drought carrying capabilities of the HK beds. Last year was a flood year and the beds only needed water four times. This year there will be beds that are one year and two years old.  Which will do better managing water and production? How much water will need to be added? Less in the older beds because the wood has broken down more and has become an integrated sponge? As the realities of climate weirdness come to haunt us, there’s great appeal in working with a concept such as Hugelkulture with its potential to help mitigate some effects of a changing climate.

About the Author

M.L. Altobelli has been creating and maintaining fine gardens for over 20 years and brings a strong commitment to creating sustainable soils for healthy people, flower, trees and grass to all of her sites. With a B.S. in Animal Science, M.L. has read widely about plants and soil, and she experiments to find ecological and organic solutions that suit the individual site. A founding member of ELA, M.L. currently serves on the Board of Directors. Her work at Woody End Farm was recently written up in the Sentinel and Enterprise. M.L. may be reached at altobelliml260@comcast.net.

by Thayer Tomlinson

There are many types of soil additives and fertilizers used to improve the structure and functions of soil. One that has re-emerged in the last five years is biochar, a solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an oxygen-limited environment—which creates a fine-grained, highly porous charcoal. Interest in biochar has increased recently as horticulturalists are looking for sustainable ways to improve soils and decrease their use of chemical fertilizers.

From the horticultural perspective, the key benefits of biochar include reduced soil bulk density, increased nutrient and water retention, and decreased nutrient leaching. With this rise in interest, new questions come up. How much biochar should be used in soils? How should biochar be applied? What types of biochar fit specific types of soils? How do we know if a particular biochar actually helps a particular soil retain nutrients and water?  How do we know what is in the biochar? The answers can vary depending on the purpose of the product as biochar can be used as a product itself or as an ingredient within a blended product. In addition to use as a soil improvement device, biochar can also be used for remediation and/or protection against particular environmental pollution and as an avenue for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation.

Poultry litter biochar before it is mixed with soils

Before looking at new research on biochar in soils, let’s examine the origins of biochar. The concept is modeled after a process begun thousands of years ago in the Amazon Basin, where islands of rich, fertile soils called terra preta (“dark earth”) were created by indigenous people. Anthropologists speculate that cooking fires and kitchen middens along with deliberate placing of charcoal in soil resulted in soils with high fertility and carbon content, often containing shards of broken pottery. These soils continue to “hold” carbon today and remain extremely nutrient rich compared to the surrounding soils. Biochar can be found in soils around the world as a result of indigenous soil management practices and natural vegetation fires. Natural biochar from historic prairie fires is a key element of the fertile Midwestern soils in the US.

Amending Healthy Soil

Until recently, it was believed that biochar’s beneficial soil impacts were seen primarily in soils with significant constraints, but two recent publications examine its impact on more fertile Midwestern agricultural soils, showing that biochar can benefit even healthy, fertile soils. Two studies published in 2010 in Geoderma highlight the potential of biochar additions to increase nutrient holding capacity and overall soil quality. The first study entitled “Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil” by Laird et al[1] suggests that the addition of biochar increases the capacity of soils to retain nutrients and reduce nutrient leaching. The research team added swine manure to a typical Midwestern soil and found a significant decrease in leaching of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorous, Potassium, Magnesium and Silicon from manure-amended soils as the biochar application rates increased. This research highlights the potential impact that biochar can have in production agriculture. The second study from Geoderma entitled “Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil” by Laird et al[2] found that biochar amendments in the soils (at the rates of 0, 5, 10, and 20 g-biochar kg−1 soil) showed greater water retention, larger specific surface areas, higher cation exchange capacities, and higher pH values relative to the un-amended controls. Additionally, the research found that the biochar amendments significantly increased total N (up to 7%) and organic carbon (up to 69%). The results from both studies highlight the role that biochar can play in improving nutrient and water holding capacities in fertile soils.

A rosemary plant growing in a compost biochar medium.

A recent study out of Rice University (featured in Rice News) entitled “Hydrologic Properties of Biochars Produced at Different Temperatures,” found that the temperature of biochar production impacts the ability of biochar to make water available to plants. Specifically, the study lead by Rice biogeochemist Caroline Masiello, highlighted that biochar produced at temperatures of 450 Celsius or higher was most likely to improve soil drainage and make more water available to plants. It also had superior carbon storage ability. Biochar produced at lower temperatures may repel water and was not found to be as stable.[3] Therefore, it is important for consumers to be aware of the specific production conditions of the biochar that they are adding to soils.

Biochar as Growth Stimulant

An interesting study came out in 2010 that examines the impact of biochar not in terms of nutrient addition but of stimulating plant growth. The paper “Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media” by Graber et al[4] found that when biochar-treated pots were compared against controls, plant development was enhanced. The impacts of biochar on plant development were not due to direct or indirect effects on plant nutrition as both the biochar-treated pots and the control had the same leaf nutrient content (the biochar was a nutrient-poor biochar to ensure the same nutrient content). The research team found two alternatives to explain the improved plant performance under biochar treatment; first, that the biochar “stimulated shifts in microbial populations towards beneficial plant growth promoting rhizobacteria or fungi, due to either chemical or physical attributes of the biochar” and/or that the “low doses of biochar chemicals, many of which are phytotoxic or biocidal at high concentrations, stimulated plant growth at low doses (hormesis).”

What is next on the horizon? More and more research is being published each month, and there will be new research highlighted and presented at the upcoming 2012 US Biochar Conference (July 29 – August 1) in Sonoma CA. The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) website and newsletter include regular updates on upcoming biochar conferences, symposia, and research opportunities, as well as profiles of research groups and producers and users of biochar. IBI also tracks all peer-reviewed publications through a bibliography and has general information on biochar (including application guidelines) on the website.

Of great significance to the biochar field, the international biochar community is currently voting on Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil, produced by IBI. These Biochar Guidelines are the first internationally developed standards created to encourage further development of the biochar industry by providing standardized information regarding the characterization of biochar materials to assist in achieving more consistent levels of product quality and to provide consumers with consistent access to credible information regarding the specific properties of biochar.

About the Author

Thayer Tomlinson is the Communications Director at the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), a non-profit organization working to promote the development of sustainable biochar systems. She may be reached at info@biochar-international.org.

[2] David A. Laird, Pierce Fleming, Dedrick D. Davis, Robert Horton, Baiqun Wang, Douglas L. Karlen. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil, Geoderma 158, (2010), 443–449

[3] Kinney TJ, et al., Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures, Biomass and Bioenergy (2012), doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.033

[4] Ellen R. Graber, Yael Meller Harel, Max Kolton, Eddie Cytryn, Avner Silber, Dalia Rav David, Ludmilla Tsechansky, Menahem Borenshtein, Yigal Elad. Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media, Plant Soil (2010), 337:481–496, doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0544-6

by Joe Magazzi

It is always difficult to understand concepts that we can’t see. Most landscapers understand the importance of healthy visible landscape ecology in terms of plants, trees and turf; the bees that pollinate them; etc. Many professionals employ practices that help this ecology naturally thrive, and this leads to a healthier landscape with less disease and fewer pests. What is often ignored, however, are the practices that increase and support the other ecology – that is the soil microorganisms below ground that are invisible to the naked eye but are as (or even more) vital for the healthy growth that we can see above ground.

We are just beginning to have a more complete understanding and characterization of this very complex ecosystem. It is estimated that one gram of soil contains one million fungi, and one billion bacteria. Of those one billion bacteria, estimates are that a mere 0.5% of soil bacteria have even been discovered or identified to date – a measure of the complexity of the soil food web that we have yet to discover. New genetic methods that allow much quicker and more thorough identification of new species are now emerging and they reveal a much more complex ecosystem than previously thought. This research is helping us “see” how invisible soil microorganisms provide vitally important support to plant, tree, and turf growth and health.  Most importantly for landcare professionals, our increased understanding of how to exploit and use these natural relationships is leading to new best practices that are more sustainable, environmentally sound, cheaper, and easier without the sacrifice of health and quality.

The Soil Ecosystem

Much of our understanding of the soil ecosystem has been described through the research and the teachings of Dr. Elaine Ingham and the concept of the “soil food web” that she has made famous. Dr. Ingham breaks soil biology down to what she terms “trophic levels”. The first trophic level is made up of the primary producers, that is the photosynthetic sources that turn the energy from sunlight and carbon dioxide into sugars or energy for the plants and the entire soil food web (usually a plant or tree, but photosynthetic bacteria and algae may also be included in this group). The second trophic level consists of the decomposers and mutualists: non-photosynthetic bacteria and fungi. The third trophic level is made up of the shredders, predators, and grazers (nematodes, protozoa and some arthropods), and the fourth and fifth levels are made up of higher-level predators.

All elements of this system, including plants, trees, and turf, work together through very complex interactions. Organisms in one trophic level are dependent on organisms in both lower and higher trophic levels. This article focuses only on the interactions of the bacteria and fungi that comprise the first two trophic levels. Understanding, and then building and maintaining, these two levels helps the entire soil food web and results in better and healthier turf, plants and trees – and does so in a much more sustainable manner than conventional land care methods. First, let’s explore the relationships between organisms in the first two tropic levels.

The Roles of Bacteria and Fungi

The benefits that soil microbes provide to the plants and trees are numerous. In a very basic sense, the bacteria and fungi provide nutrients to plants and in return, a plant will provide sugars through their root exudates for consumption by soil microorganisms. In fact, the function of the soil biology is so important to the plant that it will give up almost half of its photosynthetically produced energy to the soil life. This relationship, however, is much more complex than just a sugar for nutrients bartering system. Here are some of the major benefits that bacteria and fungi provide for plants and trees:

1) Providing and cycling carbon and nutrients. Bacteria and fungi are the primary decomposers in the soil.  If they weren’t present, we would be standing on a giant pile of dead plant and animal matter that never breaks down. The carbon and nutrients that make up all living matter is constantly recycled through the actions of the soil biology. Also, the microbes in the soil are responsible not only for the detoxification of harmful compounds such as many herbicides that are used in conventional horticulture, turf care, or agriculture, but also for naturally produced toxins that would otherwise accumulate and inhibit growth.

2) Retaining and delivering nutrients and water. The bacteria and fungi, along with the organic matter that is produced as a function of the actions of soil biology, are the retention and delivery system of the soil – that is they act like the soil’s plumbing system, or as the stomach for a plant. Microbe populations grow to the capacity of their environments. As nutrients are added (through fertilization, composting, mulching etc.), microbes will reproduce and the carbon, nutrients, and water will be locked up in their cell bodies. As the nutrient and water supplies start to decrease, microbes begin to die and re-release these components, acting in a sense like a living buffering system. Bacteria and fungi also live on and in the root system and inside the plant or tree itself. Fungi have complex, branching systems of hyphae that act like a plumbing system to transport nutrients and water that would otherwise not be accessible to roots. In addition, the movement of the organisms in the soil (including higher level organisms such as nematodes and worms) acts like a transportation system moving vital compounds into the reach of the root system.  When nutrients run low, trees and plants will actually exude compounds through their roots to “recruit” fungi and bacteria that are able to provide for them in a mutualistic manner.

3) Promoting plant and tree growth. In an indirect manner, plants that are “fed” through the above actions of soil microbes are healthier, grow better, and produce more flowers and are therefore more fertile and attractive. However, soil microbes also contribute to plant and tree health in a much more direct manner. Bacteria and fungi actually produce plant hormones that stimulate plant growth, including all the major groups of plant hormones: gibbrellic acids, cytokinins and auxins. Maintaining or adding healthy soil biology is a great way to speed up germination and natural, healthier growth without the side-effects seen with synthetic hormones.

4) Encouraging natural disease protection and resistance. Since a tree or plant is considered the home for soil microorganisms and since these microbes rely on the sugars produced by the plant for their survival, bacteria and fungi have evolved mechanisms to protect their “home” at all costs. First, beneficial bacteria and fungi can actually produce compounds that directly kill pathogens. In fact, many anti-fungal or anti-bacterial compounds that we use for human health, including penicillin, came from bacteria or fungi.  In nature, these compounds are used by beneficials to kill plant pathogens. Second, maintaining soil biology with numerous beneficial organisms will out-compete pathogens as both compete for many of the same resources.  A diverse and healthy population of beneficial microorganisms makes it more difficult for pathogens to become established. In simple terms, it’s a numbers game. Lastly, pests such as insects evolved to eat dead or decaying plant manner. Pests starve on healthy plants – this is the basis of the concept of trophobiosis. Plants, trees, or turf that are healthier and more nutrient dense will be better fit to naturally fight off disease and predators, and pathogenic insects simply can’t digest healthily tissue. Plants are similar to humans in this way. People that eat well and are healthy get sick less often. Through the actions of soil biology directly increasing a plant, tree, or turf’s health through better nutrition, plants are better able and more fit to fight off pressures from disease and pests.

Sustainability through Biology

Maintaining healthy soil biology is much more sustainable than traditional practices that rely on high levels of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides such as fungicides, insecticides, etc. Most importantly for landscapers and growers, practices that build and maintain a healthy soil food web have been proven to be less expensive in the long-term. These systems also require less maintenance and labor-sustained microbial communities do the work for you. Part 2 of this article will cover the actual practices that can be employed to stimulate (bio-stimulation) or supplement (bio-supplementation) soil biology for improved care at home and by professional landscapers.

About the Author

Joe Magazzi, MS, is the president and co-founder of GreenEarth Agriculture, a company that provides eco-friendly products and consulting services to landcare professionals and farmers. He has been involved in the research and development of microbial-based products for use in turf care and agriculture for many years. Joe has a Master’s degree in genetics (with a microbiology focus) from the University of Connecticut-Storrs, and his research has been published in scientific journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine. Joe may be reached at joe@greenearthag.com.

by Paul Slovisky

In September 2009, the Metro Atlanta area experienced record flooding when a major rain event dumped 10+ inches of rain on the region in a three-day period. Local watersheds were already saturated by above-average precipitation in the weeks preceding the event, and the results were devastating to the region, with a cost of $500 million for repair and cleanup. As an aquatic resource management firm based in the Metro area, Aquascape Environmental was involved in recovery efforts immediately. Our Lake Management division was inundated with service requests to remove debris from local impoundments almost as soon as the rain stopped falling – from trash and trees to walking bridges and docks. After those initial weeks of cleanup, however, our restoration division began to see more complicated flood-related challenges as property owners faced significant, landscape-altering erosion caused by the historic flood waters.

Case Study: Rosemont Apartment Homes

In late 2009, the management of Rosemont Apartment Homes in Roswell, Georgia, requested an assessment of streambank conditions on the property. An unnamed tributary flows roughly east to west through Rosemont’s recreational common area, adjacent to the community’s 1.37-acre impoundment. This reach exhibited typical characteristics of a channelized and urbanized stream, including recent channel incision and down cutting resulting in lateral bank migration. Although these conditions had existed to some extent prior to September 2009, they were significantly worsened by the flooding events. By March 2010, the streambank was eroding at such a rapid rate that the integrity of the impoundment was threatened, with a nearly vertical bank slope and minimal riparian buffer vegetation.

The stream reach adjacent to Rosemont's impoundment showed significant erosion impact following the September 2009 flooding event (December 2009).

Lateral bank migration is visibly evident (December 2009).

As requested, we completed a thorough assessment of the conditions and developed a streambank stabilization plan to address the problem.  An integral component of the design process was drafting an appropriate erosion and sediment control plan to obtain the required regulatory permitting for this project, which consisted of a City of Roswell Land Disturbance Permit, Georgia Environmental Protection Division Stream Buffer Variance and a Pre Construction Notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers of our intent to operate under Nationwide Permit 13. Rosemont then contracted us to implement the plan, which encompassed approximately 105 linear feet of channel banks within portions of both sides of the stream. The plan focused on reestablishing and hard armoring the original contours of the affected streambank in conjunction with soil bio-engineering techniques to restore the riparian vegetative buffer. Hard armoring is a “permanent” impervious engineering approach, which involves gentle grading of the bank followed by placement of appropriately sized broken rock (“rip rap”) to provide a foundation and protect the bank from scouring. Hard armoring was utilized in this particular project due to the severity of the streambank erosion, but we incorporated soil bio-engineering into the overall plan as well to provide long-term stability.

Stabilization

Work on the project began in the first week of December 2010. As a first step, unstable soils were either addressed or removed from within the areas to be stabilized through minor bank shaping activities. Type I rip rap (mix of rocks 24” to 48” in diameter) was installed to re-establish and protect the toe of the bank slope throughout the reach. Compacted fill material was utilized to restore the original contours of the most heavily eroded portions of the banks. Care was taken during the placement of this material to maintain an appropriate cross sectional area throughout the repaired reach, resulting in final bank slopes of 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V. Because the river’s left stream bank served as part of the dam structure of the adjacent impoundment, we used fill materials consisting of properly compacted clay soils.

The project began with removal of unstable soils and minor bank shaping activities (December 2010).

While some portions of the reach exhibited only minor erosion, it was still necessary to perform minor grading in those areas to facilitate the proper installation of the Type I rip rap rock toe protection while also achieving a more uniform bank slope throughout the reach. The downstream terminus of the project was graded to blend the proposed repairs into the existing downstream contours. In addition, the installed rock toe protection was keyed into both the channel bottom and the adjacent streambank in order to prevent future migration downstream and/or undercutting of the repaired areas.

Compacted fill material and Type 1 rip rap have been placed and planting process for re-establishment of riparian buffers is complete (December 2010).

A concrete sill across the active stream channel at the uppermost portion of the reach was severely undercut by the 2009 flooding event. This sill was associated with an existing sanitary sewer pipeline that flows underneath the stream channel. In an effort to stabilize this area against future erosion/channel incision and to protect the existing sanitary sewer, we installed Type I rip rap as a grade control structure immediately below the concrete sill within the undercut areas. We also reestablished the existing plunge pool, which was damaged by the flooding, to a more appropriate dimension and refreshed the rip rap protection to the top of bank throughout the entire feature. Finally, a Type I Rock grade control was installed at the downstream extent of the plunge pool to protect against future rip rap migration and further channel incision.

Reestablishing Riparian Buffer

Upon completion of construction activities, we undertook reestablishment of the riparian stream buffer through the installation of appropriate native vegetation. In consideration of an adjacent sanitary sewer easement as well as the recreational nature of the area for the community, we selected a combination of dormant black willow (Salix nigra) cuttings, installed via joint planting, and low-growing riparian shrub species consisting of  Inkberry (Ilex glabra) and Sparkleberry (Ilex verticillata) installed at the top of bank. Finally, an appropriate native seed mixture including both warm and cool season herbaceous species was sown throughout the project area as a temporary erosion control ground cover.

Nine months after project completion, banks are stable and riparian vegetation is thriving (September 2011).

The Rosemont project was completed in mid-December 2010, and the client was satisfied with the results. We returned to repair some localized erosion occurring due to overland runoff from the adjacent common area that was not readily identifiable prior to construction. Property management is ensuring that the growth height of the riparian buffer vegetation is maintained in order to keep the site lines open to the pond and associated fountain, which are focal points for the community. Because we had removed several large woody debris blockages from within the channel as part of the repair process, we recommended routine inspections to ensure that the channel remains free-flowing.

Due to the level of incision of this channel there are no guarantees that the site will fully withstand another 100-year type flood event such as was experienced in 2009. However, the installation of rip rap that is more than triple the size of the previous channel protection, along with the replacement of riparian buffer vegetation, have maximized the potential for long-term streambank stability; in fact, the repair location has experienced more than one “near top of bank” storm event since completion with no noticeable adverse effects.

About the Author

Paul Slovisky is Vice President for Operations at Aquascape Environmental in Woodstock, Georgia, where he oversees all landscape construction and restoration projects. Paul holds a B.S. in Earth Sciences from Mercer University and is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control. He may be reached at paulslovisky@aquascape.net, www.aquascape.net, or http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-slovisky/16/9b0/288.

by Laurence Coronis

The quote in the title for this article is a comment made by Burt DeMarche of the Laurel Rock Company at a recent landscape association meeting, and it reminded me of the importance of taking care of your team. This really is the secret to achieving your competitive edge. After all, we all have the same equipment, skid steers, mowers, trucks, etc., (albeit different brands and condition) and similar supplies from our vendors.  So the real difference is YOU and YOUR TEAM.

Employee Retention: Retaining and Growing Employees Is the Key

We all struggle to attract good team members, but we have to learn to focus more on how to retain the ones we have. A satisfied and happy staff will automatically attract more good recruits and act as positive representatives to your customers and the community at large. Turnover is disruptive to your entire operation and to the spirit of your company.

You’re Mainly a Coach, if Necessary a Boss

1. Regard each staff member as an individual by acknowledging his or her unique strengths and limitations. Learn about and get to know each of your staff and what tasks will suit them in your operation.
2. Train all of your staff, from day one, how to succeed with positive energy and attitude. All of us have experienced the first day on a new job and know that we go in on our first day excited and wanting to learn what to do. So make sure you take the time to train your new employees properly while maintaining their enthusiasm.
3. Publicly praise your employees’ successes, no matter how small the success may be.  Remember, “You get more with sugar, than you do with vinegar.” The number one item of importance in job satisfaction surveys is being appreciated for your efforts. Be sure not to include constructive criticism at the same time as praise. A good book to hone your skills is The One Minute Manager. It is a short read, but extremely helpful.
4. Show your staff there is room for growth. If someone shows initiative, work together with that staff member to develop a plan and help him/her acquire the necessary skills to grow within your company. This is as simple as meeting with employees twice a year to review their performance and to guide them on developing skills or specifying the needed training to be able to grow within your company or in their position.
5. Listen, listen, listen. Then respect what you hear and involve your employees in the success of the company. Include them when looking for new ideas, or trying to solve a specific problem. They may have a different perspective than you. When the staff is involved in the appropriate decision making processes they can make all the difference in helping companies move forward and adopt needed changes successfully. This, in turn, helps to empower them to be contributors to your team’s success and to keep thinking of new ideas because they know you are willing to listen.

Each day is so busy for you and trying to fit any more in seems impossible, but the way you lead your employees is the essence of your company. Your leadership defines your company culture and can be the recipe for your company’s success. We all know the struggle that occurs in the days and weeks after we unexpectedly lose a tenured and trained team member. So make time in every day to know, coach, listen to, and respect your team, because “It’s All About the People”!

About the Author

Laurence Coronis is a business consultant and leadership coach focusing on profitability and bringing sustainability and organic practices into the Green Industry. With a B.S. in Plant Science from U.N.H., he founded Coronis Landscaping Inc., and in the 30 years of operation won numerous state and national awards, including a “Grand Prize for Landscape Excellence” from A.L.C.A. (now PLANET). Coronis Landscaping was named one of the top 100 landscape companies in the U.S. in 1999 by Landscape Management Magazine. After selling Coronis Landscaping to a national landscape company, Laurence stayed on as the Branch Manager. During the years of his leadership, his branch was consistently a top performer in customer retention and profitability. He has served on the Board of Directors and as President of N.H. Landscape Association and presently is on the Advisory Board for NOFA-OLC. He can contacted at lsc@coronisconsulting.com or visit his website at www.coronisconsulting.com.

by Clémence Corriveau

Water sustains and beckons us all: plants, animals, insects, and people. Yet, it can create challenges when it limits usable space or collects in the wrong location. By redirecting and reusing rainwater and by replanting to accommodate wetlands, you can turn problem garden areas into beautiful havens. Here are some examples of collecting rainwater in rain barrels and creating rain gardens and ponds to capture the treasure that water brings to the landscape.

Rain Barrels

Collecting the rainwater from all of the roofs on your property is a great way to conserve water, no matter how small the building may be. (Figure 1.) Using rain barrels is a wonderful way to store water for periods of drought and for watering flowerpots and vegetables in the garden. Adding a rain chain that cascades from the roof down to the barrel (Figure 2.) adds visual interest all year round, including during the winter when ice forms on the links and creates elaborate sculptures. (Figure 3.)

Figure 1. The surface of every roof provides an opportunity to collect water. A backyard shed with gutters fills two rain barrels with water that is used to replenish the nearby pond.

Figure 2. A rain barrel and rain chain at the corner of the house creates interest near the patio. Collected rainwater is used to water patio pots and the nearby vegetable garden.

Figure 3. Although the rainwater is not collected in the barrel during the winter, the rain chain provides a pleasing ice sculpture.

Rain barrels can also be used to slow down and redirect the water coming from a gutter. A former problem area near a client’s garage was solved by placing a rain barrel to collect the water from the gutter. (Figure 4.) A hose connected at the bottom of the barrel guides the collected water into an adjacent rain garden so during a heavy rain, the water flows into the garden where it is slowly absorbed. (Figure 5.) This simple rain garden also serves additional purposes. It is now an interesting area that used to be a plain strip of lawn between two driveways. By removing the lawn and excavating slightly so it is lower than both driveways, then planting river birches and ferns, we created a beautiful screen between the two properties. (Figure 6.) It became a lovely solution to water accumulating near the garage. Now water collects in a rain barrel and is effectively reused.

Figure 4. The challenge: Rainwater from the adjoining slope and from the roof of the garage ran off and accumulated into the area adjacent to the garage.

Figure 5. The solution: A rain barrel added at the corner near the garage collects the water from the roof. The lawn was removed from the adjoining slope and the ground was slightly excavated to hold on the runoff water. Although ferns are dormant, the interest and architecture of the river birches bring year round beauty and the plowed snow can be piled without hurting the vegetation.

Figure 6. The pay off: A rain garden can take many forms. Here, hay-scented ferns (Dennestidia punctiloba) and river birches (Betula nigra ‘Heritage’) work their magic to absorb the water while providing a screen between the two driveways.

Rain Gardens

Rain gardens are broadly defined as gardens composed of plants that grow in very wet soil. They are another way to transform a problem area into a beautiful garden.

One client had a yard with a high, grassy slope. Water pooled at the bottom constantly, creating a soggy, unusable space where her children would normally have played. As farmers have done for centuries, we terraced the slope with shrubs and perennials to reduce the amount of water that ran down the hill. In addition, the base of the slope was slightly re-graded to create a grassy area for the kids to play and a lower rain garden where the remaining water run-off collects and is slowly absorbed by the plants. This successful solution created through considerable grading and construction, transformed their backyard.

Another client came to me with a particularly challenging backyard property that was so wet it was unusable. (Figure 7.) The problem was caused by very dense clay soil that did not allow for adequate drainage. Because it was not practical to replace such an extensive amount of soil, we created a rain garden in a very large portion of the yard, and re-graded a small area for a lawn and patio near the house. The rain garden thrives in its designated location, and the homeowners flourish in their new usable space. (Figure 8.)

Figure 7. A wet, unusable yard before we started to create a rain garden

Figure 8. Three years later, the homeowners have a beautiful garden. All the plants flourish in wet poorly drained soil.

In spite of their names, rain gardens are not swamps. With careful planting, it is possible to create a sitting area near or in rain gardens that can be used most of the year. (Figure 9.)  Plants such as Caltha palustris, Chelone glabra, Gentiana lause, Iris versicolor, Lobelia cardinalis, Lobelia siphitica, Trollius laxus, Clethra alnifolia, various Viburnums, Ilex verticillata, Rosa palustris, Hammamelis vernalis, Hibiscus mocheuto,  Aronia ‘Brillantissima’, and of course the beautiful Betula nigra and various ferns thrive in these settings and create year-round, visual interest.

Figure 9. A garden bench, near center of photo, allows visitors to enjoy the view and wildlife.

Ponds

Creating a pond in a problematic wet area has many benefits. The pond and its plantings will serve as a destination garden rather than an eye sore. (Figure 10.) It lures desirable and attractive wildlife, including frogs, dragonflies, and fireflies. (Figure 11.) A common concern about ponds and still water is that they attract mosquitoes; however, water pumps used in man-made ponds today keep the water moving and the presence of frogs controls the mosquito population. Adding bat houses in a garden can add additional natural mosquito control.

Figure 10. The more plants you add, the more interesting the pond becomes. It creates a myriad of habitats for the desirable wildlife. A sitting area makes it a destination as well as a focal point.

Figure 11. Mallard ducks enjoy a stop at a suburban backyard pond.

Planting a variety of grasses and perennials around the pond creates interest and attracts butterflies as well as other lovely insects. An attractive color scheme and a thoughtful selection of plants with diverse textures and heights result in a pleasurable environment to complement the pond (Figure 12.). Include a sitting area near the pond, as it always becomes a popular destination. You and your guests can relax and sip a glass of wine, while enjoying an evening concert provided by the frogs (Figure 13.). FYI: Frogs will move in very quickly after the pond is built  – they are natural and free! Adding a fire pit to the sitting area will increase your enjoyment of this destination garden.

Figure 12. Diverse plantings and textures create visual interest around ponds.

Figure 13. Frogs quickly find a newly installed pond.

Man-made ponds demand only a minimal amount of maintenance. They don’t require any chemicals to keep the algae under control: a ball of barley, available on the Internet or at a well-stocked garden supply store can be placed in the pond once a year in the spring. Nothing else is needed. Use a rake in the spring to drag out any debris that fell into the pond during the fall and winter. Several times a season, take a minute to empty the pump filter bag to ensure that it will run properly.

If the pond is visible from the house, the movement of water caused by running the pump all winter creates the beautiful ice form to enjoy. Otherwise, it is absolutely safe to remove the pump for the winter and let the pond rest.

Building a pond can also be a practical solution to street noise. The sound of running water and a well-placed berm, or mound of earth constructed as a natural sound barrier, can camouflage traffic and other noise pollution. (Figure 14.)

Figure 14. Creating running water that emits pleasant sounds and the construction of a berm helps to reduce the noise of a busy street.

About the Author

Clémence Corriveau is the founder and owner of Ecological Landscape Designs, LLC. She has a Master in Arts in Landscape Design and Planning from the Conway School of Landscape Design. She is NOFA certified and, in addition to ELA, she holds memberships in Association of Professional Landscape Designers, New England Wild Flower Society, and the American Horticultural Association. Clémence may be reached at corriveau_landscape@hotmail.com.

This article first appeared in the Summer 2005 issue of the Ecological Landscaper; Paul has provided an update for 2012.

by Paul Kwiatkowski

In this age of reckless consumption of resources and pollution without shame, conservation is vital. The numbers of individuals and businesses that embrace conservation are growing, but America is still lagging in shifting to cleaner, more efficient enterprises, such as hybrid automobiles, wind power, and green roofs. Individuals must take it upon themselves to implement conservation strategies in their neighborhoods, communities, and places of work.

At Mount Auburn Cemetery, America’s first garden cemetery, conversations, meetings, and debates have moved us toward the future as an environmentally progressive institution. We are conscious of the danger of fertilizers entering our water and we observe strict buffer zones. We have replaced artificial fertilizer with organic. Our flowerbeds use compost to increase the water-holding capacity of the soil and to replace nutrients. Less water is needed for drought-tolerant perennials than for what had been beds solely of annuals.

We preserve native plants and eradicate invasives. We have replaced unnecessary gas-powered vehicles with an electric fleet. Habitat restoration projects for plants and wildlife incorporate natural remedies, such as reduction of algae using bales of barley straw in the ponds. [See Barley Straw for Clear Ponds, TEL, Spring 2005.] Natural solutions cause less environmental stress and cost less than chemical solutions.

Can Mount Auburn do more? Of course. Conservation opportunities are available to those willing to make the effort. Perhaps one day the remaining gasoline-powered vehicles will be replaced and green roofs will top the buildings. Right now we are working on water conservation.

Prioritizing Water Conservation & Collection

Water consumption affects every person and business in every community. Mount Auburn’s large aquifer has met the cemetery’s needs for generations, but today the aged pipelines are frequently shut down to repair leaks and water pressure is inadequate in parts of the property. To conserve water, some areas are not irrigated at all, although others are still high-priority for irrigation. Mount Auburn currently has a consumption permit allocated by the Charles River Watershed. A consumption permit allows an entity to draw a specific amount of water from the aquifer. Daily limits are reduced and/or restricted during periods of drought. We have also replaced high-volume overhead sprinklers with low-emitter models.

Interconnected barrels became part of Mt Auburn's rainwater harvesting system in 2004.

In March of 2004, I was allotted $400 to set up a rainwater harvesting system at the greenhouse. A larger water storage system was to be considered, if I could demonstrate success. My idea was a basic one: connect rain barrels to the gutter system of the head house garage and office space at the greenhouse. So, I purchased eight 44-gallon, heavy-duty trash barrels, 10 feet of one-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes and elbows, mosquito netting, metal screws, caulking, a one-inch circular drill bit, and a quarter-horsepower sump pump. To prevent unwanted substances from entering the barrels from the roof, I set up a device to divert the first flush of rainwater.

I fastened an empty quart oil bottle (triple rinsed and bleached) inside each gutter elbow with metal screws and sealed them with caulking; the bottom of each bottle was cut and bent up into a flap. PVC piping fit snuggly into the opening of the bottle and was secured with screws. The pipe led from the bottle into a hole drilled in the lid of a rain barrel. The idea was that the first flow of storm water would run out the bottom of the drainpipe, but as the water pressure strengthened, it would overpower the flap and run through the PVC pipe and into the barrel. Finally, I connected overflow rain barrels with pipe. Netting covered the end of the last overflow pipe to deny mosquitoes access to the water for breeding. When all the rain barrels were filled, the water would release to the ground.

Captured water flows from barrel to barrel through PVC piping.

The system worked. Water from the barrels was transferred to 100-gallon tanks carried by turf vehicles and used to irrigate the annuals. Rainwater was also mixed with horticultural oil in a 500-gallon tank for use by the arborists.

Expanding on Success

It was soon obvious that more water storage was needed. I scrambled to salvage two 100-gallon tanks and two GEM electric car trunks. That was still not enough. I began soliciting donations, contacting juice and sauce manufacturers and distributors and all the local recycling companies. In July, User Friendly Recycling of West Bridgewater, MA, donated nine 55-gallon barrels. All had been triple rinsed, but I bleached them as a precaution.

In September, I heard on NPR that Wal-Mart Foundation was making donations to community projects. In response to my inquiry, Wal-Mart in Methuen, Massachusetts, sent $75, with which I purchased a drill, drill bits, hacksaw, blades, hose, and extension cord. Home Depot in Watertown supplied seven heavy duty barrels and ten feet of PVC pipe, almost $300 worth of materials. Six 55-gallon barrels for $10 each came from a salvage company.

Water storage capacity is now nearly 2,000 gallons. In 2004, the rainwater harvesting system collected 7,118 gallons of water, which helped maintain the many beds of annuals on family lots and garden beds. My goal for 2005 is to water all the gardens that I care for with collected rainwater.

In the spring of 2005, after disconnecting and storing the system for the winter, I increased the water flow through the gutters by connecting the downspouts directly to the barrels. Instead of using quart bottles with diverter flaps, I replaced the gutter elbows and fashioned a flap, attached with stainless steel ties. I drilled release holes and connected another gutter elbow to channel the water directly to the rain barrels. In a rain, the barrels now fill extremely quickly and less water is lost.

By May 24 of this year (2005), nearly 3,800 gallons of rainwater had been collected. Collecting rainwater has been a simple and successful conservation effort at Mt. Auburn.

Leaping to 2012

I eventually acquired fifty, 55-gallon barrels from Bancroft Barrel in Somerville, MA. I attached a gutter to a greenhouse and connected the barrels to the gutter. This increased collection capacity to more than 3,000 gallons. Since 2004, we have collected 85,000 gallons of rainwater at Mount Auburn. We also have incorporated many drought tolerant perennials into our gardens, often replacing more demanding annuals. This coming summer, Mount Auburn will be taking down its forty-year-old greenhouses and replacing them with a modern and more environmentally sustainable structure. A 30,000 gallon underground cistern will replace the rain barrels in our conservation effort.

Gutters from the greenhouse roof direct water into a system of interconnected barrels..

About the Author

Paul Kwiatkowski attended Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, majoring in Ecology. He accepted an internship at Mount Auburn in 1999, followed by the position of Conservationist. He works on many sustainable restoration and habitat improvement projects. Paul may be reached at pkwiatkowski@mountauburn.org.

Greater Garden Yields with Drip Irrigation
Written by Robert Kourik
Published by Metamorphic Press, 2012

Reviewed by Brett Graf

Robert Kourik’s ebook, Greater Garden Yields with Drip Irrigation, provides strong evidence that drip irrigation is not just for low-water landscapes. It contains information from numerous studies that show that using proper drip irrigation strategies can improve the health and production of garden plants and the soil they live in.

He covers important topics like soil health and structure, how different methods of irrigation influence root growth, choosing the right emitters for the job, effective use of in-line emitter tubing, watering schedules and much more. Kourik does a great job explaining how the right combination of these elements will produce the healthiest plants and the best harvest.

This is great reading material for anyone who is skeptical about using drip irrigation, or wants to learn basic to advanced drip irrigation strategies. Kourik explains how it works, and this ebook will help build your confidence in the design and installation of drip irrigation. He tops it all off with some specific plant knowledge and great recipes for meals and snacks using low-water garden plants – like fruits, veggies, and herbs.

About the Author

Brett Graf is the owner of Habitat Gardens in Santa Cruz, CA, offering ecological, sustainable, and innovate approaches to landscape and garden services. Brett is a certified as a Permaculture Design Consultant, Western Herbalist, and Landscape Horticulturist. Committed to social justice and a healthy environment, Brett is involved with many local and national conservation groups. He may be reached via his website.

by Ben Falk

Sue Reed’s article, “A Talk of Three Garden Shows: Progress?” oversimplifies an important and complex issue. Since Sue did not attend my talks at the ELA Conference, I will offer some of the perspectives we work from when practicing permaculture. When referring to permaculture she states: “Like all the worst systems of agriculture and horticulture in our past, this new approach still places human wishes and desires (often called “needs”) in the center of the equation.” Actually, permaculture does the opposite of most agricultural systems as it facilitates the development of diverse, highly complex, and resilient ecosystems in which human needs such as food, water, and shelter are provided for locally.

Permaculture fosters complex ecosystems that can provide human needs locally.

In human-inhabited systems, high levels of biodiversity and structural diversity along with productive yields are necessary ingredients in a healthy ecosystem. (Permaculture is not a framework for managing “wild” lands, but it does call for a wild zone – Zone 5 – in any site large enough to accommodate such.) Permaculture, as I understand and practice it, is about enhancing, not just sustaining the health of the ecosystems from which we derive our sustenance on Earth. This is not possible by placing the needs or wishes of one species above the health of the whole system. To that end, permaculture regards humans as participants in their ecosystems – not as tyrants, beneficent kings, or evildoers, but as “natural” as an ant, bear, or beaver, and capable of both beneficial and destructive ecosystem membership.

Permaculture as System Designer

Permaculture focuses on providing for basic human needs in healthy and regenerative ways that don’t depend upon distant destruction of ecosystems to provision ourselves. Permaculture is not the lay-environmentalist approach of sitting back enjoying the view of green hills while forests across the globe are razed to provide for the resource demands of our lifestyle. Permaculture is not armchair environmentalism at all, but gardening that embraces the entirety of a complex, biodiverse, and ever-changing living world. And a world with humans in it. It does not, in general, see plants or other organisms that have been in a place for 10 or 100 or 300 years as fundamentally more “natural” or proper in a place than plants which are recent arrivals. It asks first, “What does a plant do and how does it relate to other plants, the soil and human needs?” Not, “How long has it been here?”  It never views a plant, an animal, or another human culture as evil or alien. It works from a perspective of inclusion, rather than exclusion and recognizes that all members of a living system are connected. It sees synergy, not conflict, everywhere.

Permaculture design never seeks to eradicate and simplify any part of a system – just the opposite. It works with ecosystems for what they are – constantly evolving assemblages of species and shifting relationships between all pieces of the ecosystem. It asks us to find ways, the most synergistic ways, to fit into this changing web of relationships. Permaculture also sees a need to adapt to and respond to emerging challenges such as a more rapidly shifting climate, increasing biospheric toxicity, mass-extinctions, social system and human health declines, and other current challenges – challenges that require us to respond to, not retreat from or ignore changes underway.

Food system diversity enhances human health and the health of other systems.

In response to these challenges, permaculture design promotes an exceedingly high level of biodiversity in systems. For instance, permaculture work involving the exchange of seed and plants advances ex-situ conservation goals so that species threatened by climate and other changes in their historic locations can survive in new, more suitable locations. This work also results in continual increases in food, human health, and ecosystem health possibilities found in the increasing diversity of ecosystems and synergies present there.

Permaculture sees human and ecosystem health as mutually dependent.  Permaculture, in contrast to conventional “natives-first” gardening, embraces the legacy of food systems diversity we all benefit from during each meal (unless you live on groundnut, hazelnut, venison, bison or certain berries), and it actively expands that diversity to enhance human and other living system health. Permaculture sites become wildlife restoration zones as a matter of course. Much of the food we promote ends up feeding “wild” life due to the sheer diversity of foods present and the “wildness” of the site itself. This is a far less managed approach than most any other codified gardening and farming systems. Additionally, permaculture incorporates earthworks, such as swales, ponds, and terraces, and mixes tree crops with annual crops. This structural diversity actually creates far more opportunities for species of concern, such as songbirds and amphibians, than all other forms of more simplistic gardening and all forms of annual-only organic agriculture. However, this should not be a surprise. Permaculture emerged from direct and participatory observation and engagement with diverse ecosystems across the globe. It is not modeled simply on what an ecosystem happened to look like in a particular year, say 1491.

Humans in the Equation

It seems Sue Reed has a particular bias for the North American ecosystem as it was assembled just before European contact. Indeed, seeing “natives” as fundamentally more beneficial to an ecosystem depends on this notion. At what point was this ecosystem ideal in her mind? Was it before “native” societies cultivated the Three Sisters from Mesoamerica? Was it only after the ice sheet retreated from New England and the last version of hardwood forest blanketed this region? Was it before “native” peoples promoted vast forests of chestnut and oak and managed landscapes extensively with fire, or before those “artificial” disturbances? Does her vision of an ideal ecosystem include seven billion human beings or other emerging conditions? And if so, where and how should they derive their sustenance?

Permaculturists are answering this challenge to Earth’s ecosystems by cultivating systems which produce as much food, energy, materials, medicine, energy, wildlife habitat, water purification, carbon sequestration, pollination, and other ecosystem services as possible in the smallest amount of space possible for the longest amount of time possible. Doing this requires that we engage the continuous forces of change and partner with other species and whole ecosystems to promote resilience. Permaculture both acknowledges and works with the process of change, whereas, surprisingly, many forms of “conservation” seem to be focused primarily on maintaining specific species and ecosystem arrangements as they were at one idealized time in the past. These attempts to maintain (with great frustration) an unchanging romantic notion of species assemblage are currently retarding real progress toward enhancing the health of living systems on planet Earth. It is time we looked at these systems for what they are and are not.

Defining “Native”

In contrast to many native-plant fundamentalist statements made over the years consider the following facts about ecology and ecosystem dynamics along with some of the ways in which reality simply does not mesh with the many implicit assumptions made in Sue’s article and in the Nativistic War-on-Alien-Invader ideology at large:

• Humans are now an active influence in most, if not all, ecosystems on the planet and have been so for many thousands of years. During this time, humans have been moving plants and animals both for daily survival and trade. Most of the diversity of our current “local” food system is a direct result of this: e.g. the potato from South America, corn, beans and squash from Mesoamerica, the honeybee and earthworm from Europe, and the apple from southwestern Asia to name a few. When using the term “native,” what year do we use to determine whether a plant is “from here” or “an alien”?  If we choose European contact, we ignore a multiple thousand-year history of anthropogenic plant dispersal that was highly active before Europeans began to settle the “New” (actually very old) World.

• No plant community is permanent: not knotweed, not barberry, not white pine, goldenrod or any other dominating plant. Plant succession and ecosystem change are wholly “natural.” Why, when it involves human activities is it automatically “unnatural”? The goal of a truly sustaining and regenerative working land use is to promote a high biodiversity ecosystem that offers large yields of biomass while cycling fertility on site, while slowing, spreading and sinking water, and while performing other key ecosystem services, such as soil building. To do this we need to look at what functions the plants provide, not only if they have been located in a place for 100 or 500 years. That’s an important factor, but only one of many criteria as to whether a plant should be promoted or discouraged in an ecosystem.

• Any plant, whether it has been in a region for ten years or 10,000 years, has the capacity to influence a site to the point that other species are reduced in abundance: witness “native” white pine and goldenrod, both of which force out numerous species across New England due their ability to compete in abused sites, their generalist nature, and their fast growth. Is that not a destructive pattern? Is this destructiveness negated simply because these plants have been here for five or ten thousand years?

• Dispersion, growth, and decline of individuals and species are basic phenomena of all ecologies in all places. The idea that it is “unnatural” when a plant or animal moves from one region to another because of humans is rooted in an ideology that sees humans as separate from the rest of the living world. Why is it natural if a bird or an ocean current moves a plant, but not a human? Does Sue think that humans are fundamentally bad or destructive? In a constantly changing world of land-use shifts and climate changes how will species survive if they are supposed to “stay where they are from?” Movement of organisms is crucial to keep pace with global changes, if biodiversity is an aim. This does not mean that we fling seeds of various plants wildly across the globe without analysis of what would be helpful where. Instead, it means that we evaluate how to feed seven billion humans while honoring and also feeding the thousand trillion other lives that exist in the land community. Feeding one’s self from a monoculture in Iowa or Mexico while devoting time to spraying Japanese knotweed with toxic chemicals will not get us where we need to be.

Modern food systems rely on many "non-native" species.

Human beings have been on planet Earth in current form for roughly 50,000 years. Our ability to remain here well into the future depends greatly upon our ability to participate within the living world in which we are part and parcel. Being a non-participating observer attempting to maintain the world around us in a static condition is simply not an option. Sue’s article ends: “Humans are no good at predicting anything about the natural world.” So, what is she suggesting? What is the Nativist approach for engaging the world in a sustaining and regenerative manner such that we can provide for ourselves and those that might come after us while allowing the full flourishing of the rest of the living world?  Is she suggesting that we live on and from an economy based on ecological communities as they were for a period of time in the mid part of the 2nd millennium A.D.? If so, how does she see a hunter-gatherer culture reemerging that operates a functional food system without honeybees, earthworms, apples, potatoes, pears, cherries, kale, cabbage, carrots, onions, garlic, sheep, cows, beans, wheat, and other annual grains? In her vision of a “native” world, would she like to see all but the first (indigenous) peoples removed from the ecosystem in which they have artificially been introduced – including us Europeans in North America? Perhaps people as a whole are not part of the vision, since obviously there are few “native” people on this planet today. Ultimately, people are not part of the native fundamentalism Sue’s view conveys; at its core that view is as anti-people as it is anti-alien. If she has a solid plan for this vision in action I’d enjoy seeing it. I also invite Sue to my own homestead where I am carrying out a regenerative plan using permaculture in action. We are witnessing the rapid increase in both biodiversity and biomass on this formerly abused and abandoned Vermont hill farm which, without human-assisted healing, would continue to be far lower in diversity, soil health, and wildlife value than it would if left fallow in continued abandonment. Human presence can be regenerative, not just less bad. That’s the good news and powerful leverage which permaculture harnesses.

Defining Systems that Unite

Sue, I am sorry to use you as an example, but an example is sorely needed. At its basis, the native plant ideology you represent is predicated on more than the simple misconception that biological communities are static or that they have been in “ideal” states at some point in the past, only recently “disturbed” by human beings. It is also built upon a fear of nature (“taking over, invading”), the desire to control its evolution, and nostalgic, deeply emotional beliefs that stem from a paradigm which sees humans as fundamentally separate from the rest of the living world. Such a paradigm is counter productive in a time of urgent ecological and social issues that require unified and integrated solutions. After all, Earth is a whole and interconnected system – it must be regarded as such if we are to find a synergistic way to fit within the patterns of the system we call home. Divided and fragmented approaches including wars on specific plants (and cultures) have rarely, if ever, worked. It’s time to focus squarely on integrated strategies and lay aside the emotional baggage and the unscientific, unhelpful mental habits of the “nativist” approach.

Fortunately, the results of ecosystem regeneration in such participatory fields as permaculture and agroforestry are emerging and stunning. In contrast, “species eradication” and other such fear-based, hyper-controlling, and divisive efforts are failing as reliably as they line the pockets of Monsanto executives, pollute soils and groundwater and further alienate us from the living world in which we are a part. It is time to replace eradication with transformation. Killing one part of the system without addressing the entire structure of the system is a doomed approach from the start – a failure of design much like today’s “health” care system.  It is surprising what’s possible when we work from an angle of inclusion and partnership in human-ecosystem relationships, rather than domination. When we treat all life forms with respect – waging war on none – we begin to gain deep understanding that only comes through reverence and partnership. Only then will there be prospects for dwelling in beneficial relationship with the rest of nature.  Humanity’s prospects for developing a positive presence on Earth depend on inclusion, rather than exclusion, synergy rather than simplification. There are no evil plants, just dysfunctional human designs.

About the Author

Ben Falk, M.A.L.D. developed Whole Systems Design, LLC (WSD) as a land-based response to biological and cultural extinction and the increasing separation between people and elemental things. At the Whole Systems Research Farm in Vermont, WSD is developing land production and ecological restoration methods aimed at increasing living system resilience in the face of peak oil, climate change, the human health decline, and other shifts. Ben’s integrative approach to developing landscapes and buildings is continually informed by his life as a designer, builder, part time tree-tender and shepherd, instructor, and backcountry traveler.

Tour Whole Systems Research Farm

Join Ben Falk for this personally guided ELA Eco-tour of the Whole Systems Research Farm on Saturday, June 16th at 1:30 PM. Additional information and registration.

This excerpt from a longer article is reprinted by permission of the author and Native Plants & Wildlife Gardens and appears in full at http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/a-tale-of-three-garden-shows-progress/.

by Sue Reed

I have recently attended three very different garden shows that together reveal a big shift in our society’s gardening attitudes and interests. Yet I also found that a troublesome old belief – the idea that people’s garden dreams are more important than the health of the natural world – not only persists but is being re-invigorated in a surprising new way. … 

That revelation came at my third garden show, the Ecological Landscaping Association’s 18th Annual Conference and Eco-Marketplace. No fancy floral displays here. Just 40 exhibitors and 23 speakers in two educational days, co-sponsored by the Conway School of Landscape Design and the Association of Professional Landscape Designers, oriented toward an audience of 400 professionals with an interest in sustainable landscaping.

I have attended this conference many times in the past because it has always provided tons of useful, cutting-edge information, plus it’s held in Springfield, MA, not too far from my home. Many attendees travel here from quite far away because no other conference in New England offers this particular set of knowledge.

I must now disclose that, thanks to the generosity of the organizers, I was given a press pass to cover this year’s event. Even without that privilege, though, I would honestly report all good things about the ELA conference…with one slight exception, as you’ll see.

ELA Conference exhibitors support sustainable landscaping.

The exhibitors were specific to sustainable landscaping: Biochar Northeast, Compostwerks, EcoDepot, New England Wetland Plants, Ocean Organics, the George Washington University Sustainable Landscapes Program, NOFA, etc. Three that stood out for me were:

• Project Native; a small nursery that collects its own seed, raises and sells native plants, helps in local restoration projects, and has grown steadily in size since it began 10 years ago, despite the tough economy.

• Herbanatur (pronounced Er-ba-nay-tchure, not, as I thought, like it rhymes with terminator); a new organic weed-control that is actually a salt, a form of sodium chloride. Used as a foliar spray or root injection, it can kill every major invasive weed I could name, including Japanese knotweed, goutweed, giant hogweed and even buckthorn, supposedly without causing harm. If this is true, it’s impressive. (But could it be true?)

• Groundscapes Express, a company that has devised a product combining compost and partially decomposed shredded wood (NOT wood chips), to bring myccorhyzae filaments and humic acid quickly into play in stopping erosion and enhancing growth of both herbaceous and woody plants.

One of the frustrations of attending an excellent conference like this one is that there’s no way to hear all the interesting talks, many of which run concurrently to satisfy to a wide variety of appetites. Here are just a few significant things I learned in my hopping around:

• Big storms associated with climate change are going to transport a lot of species to new ecosystems. For example, Hurricane Irene brought to New England the black-spotted fruitfly, never seen here before and sighted in five states immediately after the storm. The females of this species have a saw-tooth ovipositor that can easily penetrate soft-skinned fruit such as blueberries, peaches and raspberries while they’re still growing. No need for fruit to ripen or start rotting first. A big problem.

• If you have grubs in a lawn, you should stop irrigating. Why? Because flying beetles go to moist places first. Who knew?

• In seven years, one deer couple can have 35 offspring. Deer overpopulation is a major cause of non-native plant invasion. The only cost-effective solution is to have hunters remove a doe first, before being allowed to take a buck. (This is going to go over great with the rack-hunters.)

• The Trustees of Reservations, the second-largest private land conservation organization in Massachusetts, faces an ongoing struggle with invasive plants. One big problem species? Hardy kiwi (Actinidia arguta), a plant only recently escaped into the wild. More on this just ahead.

Hardy kiwi: newly popular, wildly aggressive

One of the event’s two keynote speakers was Michael Clough, a specialist in Japanese knotweed. This plant has been causing trouble in the UK for decades and at this point the invasion is so widespread and scary that some banks refuse to grant a mortgage on property that contains even one sprig of the stuff.

The story of knotweed’s origins in the UK is sadly identical to many invasion stories: it was enthusiastically marketed based on one or two appealing qualities (in this case those qualities were dune-stabilization and pretty flowers), then was introduced in ecosystems that lacked inherent biological controls, and now, more than a hundred years later, it has become disastrously rampant. Getting rid of knotweed requires either long-term herbicide application, or if that’s not possible in sensitive areas or where other valuable plants are growing, UK law requires digging nine feet down and 20 feet out in all directions, then sifting out the roots, and drying and burning them, or burying the excavated material 15 feet deep. What a frustrating, energy-sucking, royal pain.

Japanese knotweed loves the living conditions in Britain.

How ironic, then, that the ELA event’s other keynote speaker was Ben Falk, of Whole Systems Design. Now, I confess that I couldn’t stay for Ben’s dinnertime address, so my comments are based on chats with others who did hear him, his website, and what I know of those who follow similar practices. Ben is one of a growing group of landscape professionals who advocate a renaissance of old-fashioned homesteading and 1970’s back-to-the-land values. They have revised and extended original permaculture ideas, creating their own modern set of solutions, relabeled with names like edible forest gardening, regenerative design, conscious system design or other inspiring terms.

This group of hard-working, hands-on garden folk perceive that the earth is in trouble, and they want to make things better: a worthy goal. Their approach is admirably multi-layered but focuses mainly on maximizing productivity of land and reducing the need for outside inputs. More worthy goals.

According to this school of thought, the highest and best use for land is to produce food and fuel for people. And there’s the problem. Like all the worst systems of agriculture and horticulture in our past, this new approach still places human wishes and desires (often called “needs”) in the center of the equation.

Which brings us back to hardy kiwi. This plant is widely used in edible landscaping plans, because it produces large, good-tasting fruit. It also grows fast and can thrive in a wide range of conditions, two qualities of invasive plants everywhere. And as we learned earlier, hardy kiwi has already become, in a very short time, a serious problem. It did not blow in on a storm or get carried here in the gut of a passing bird, which would be unfortunate but unavoidable. Hardy kiwi was introduced to our forests by well-meaning idealists, many of whom (coincidentally?) also adhere to the point of view that invasive plants are being unfairly maligned these days, and are really not so bad.

This is not Borneo. Still think hardy kiwi is no problem? We should know better by now. (Photo credit: Julie Richburg, TTOR)

These gardeners also promote using several other invasive plants, including autumn olive (a good nitrogen-fixer that helps other fruit trees grow!) and oriental bittersweet (when it kills trees, this opens up more space for growing food!). What about native plants and insects? What about harm to native ecosystems? Well, these things matter, but not as much as food and other things that people need.

So, progress or not?

My first thought, in light of the environmental damage resulting from this new school of thought, was to question ELA’s wisdom in choosing this particular closing speaker. From another perspective, though, it seems that ELA is carrying out its 20-year-long educational mission in the ideal way: by presenting several sides of an issue and leaving it to us to figure out what makes the most sense.

Both the Rhode Island Flower Show and the Garden Wise Symposium revealed great positive changes in our gardening values. The ELA conference, in contrast, presented complexity, reminding us that we must pay attention to the full meaning of our choices. New food-growing methods may aim to help the planet. But if they still place human interests before the health of the environment, and if they create new problems while trying to solve old ones, they may not be quite as beneficial in the long run as their enthusiastic practitioners proclaim. We need only look at two examples from the ELA conference – forests of knotweed in the UK, and natural areas in the US fatally carpeted in hardy kiwi – to remember that humans are no good at predicting anything about the natural world.