Evolve with your garden
http://m.timesdispatch.com/richmond/db_16537/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CP0vEBfC
Evolve with your garden
Accept it, gardeners — change is the norm for gardens and landscapes. Nature alters growing conditions through weather and seasons, as does the interaction of plants, insects and wildlife. Man creates modifications each time he clears trees to plant grass, introduces non-native species or adds hardscape features.
Another way our environs change is through the progressive maturing of plants and trees over time. From the day an area is cultivated and planted, it begins to change. Over the years the maturing process may completely change a garden’s growing conditions — available sunlight, moisture, soil condition, temperature and space — and therefore the species of plants and trees that will thrive there. The savvy gardener not only recognizes the subtle changes, but flexibly and knowledgeably adapts with them.
The Henry M. Flagler Perennial Garden at Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden exemplifies the gradual changes that a garden landscape experiences over time. In 1990, the area was treeless and sunny. The garden staff planted an extensive collection of sun-loving, herbaceous perennials, accented by flowering shrubs and trees.
Fast forward 20-plus years and the Flagler Garden has naturally transformed from a sun garden to primarily a shade garden as trees grew tall and expanded their leaf canopies. Shrubs grew into mature widths and heights. Root systems became denser, causing competition for available nutrients and moisture.
And while many of the more than 1,200 plants and trees adapted well to the gradual changes, others found it less ideal. Horticulturists are now reworking this mature garden, and their tips might benefit homeowners who are dealing with similar situations.
The staff is selectively pruning large trees’ lower limbs to increase available sunlight and improve air circulation. Increased understory light avoids plant “legginess,” as well as lopsidedness caused by branches stretching toward the light needed for growth. With more light and air flow, moisture remains on leaves of understory plants for shorter time periods, reducing the risk of disease.
In other places, the horticulturists are transplanting sun-loving plants or repositioning plant beds to take advantage of existing sunlight.
Initially, the Flagler Garden was densely planted with small nursery stock for immediate impact. Now, with maturing specimens, plants are being thinned to provide ideal space for their size and long-term health. Less density reduces habitats for voles and other garden pests as well.
When plant replacements are necessary, staff follows the “right plant — right place” practice, which in this case means transitioning to shade-loving species. Organic materials are being used to improve soil structure and quality, and appropriate pH spurs the intake of natural nutrients. Additionally, “useless turf” will be reduced to increase display areas.
Rather than fighting change in the garden, embrace it. Try to understand the mature garden’s natural processes, take appropriate steps and then enjoy your rejuvenated landscape.
Record-setting 2012 warmth largely confined to North America, western Europe | Ars Technica
Record-setting 2012 warmth largely confined to North America, western Europe
In March, high temperatures over two-thirds of the continental US set numerous records and made it the nation’s warmest March on record. April has been no slouch either, as high temperature records have continued to fall. But at the time of our last report, the services that track global temperatures hadn’t analyzed the global extent of the warmth. Now that the numbers for March and April are available, it’s clear that the rest of the globe generally hasn’t shared the US’s record heat.
Globally, the current period of warming began back in the 1970s. NASA’s GISTEMP tracks the current global temperature against a baseline established by the 1951-1980 average, and it hasn’t seen a calendar year below that average since 1976, or a month below it since 1994. The US climate has generally reflected that, with high temperature extremes dominating over the last several decades, as shown below.
Trends in temperature extremes in the continental US show that 2012 has been exceptionally warm.
That said, the US is a relatively small portion of the global land mass, and an even smaller portion of the planet’s total surface area. It’s entirely possible to have the US experiencing extreme temperatures without the planet as a whole really noticing. And that’s what has seemed to have happened this spring. Even as the US has experienced record-breaking extremes, the GISSTEMP index has seen global temperatures that were roughly equivalent to the ones we experienced last year, and well below those of 2010, the warmest year on record.
GISS also offers a mapping tool that lets you identify regional differences in temperature. You can select the time you want to examine and set the baseline to which you’re comparing it. By default, the baseline uses the 1951-1980 time period used by the GISSTEMP data. That’s not especially useful for comparing recent trends, though; as we noted above, compared to that baseline, the planet as a whole has been consistently warmer in recent years. If you choose this baseline, then the entire globe will look a bit hot.
To give a more relevant view of recent temperatures, we set the baseline to 1990-2005, during which time the current warming trend was in full swing. With that as a baseline, we asked the GISS system to show us how temperatures from this March stacked up around the globe. The results, shown at top, are pretty striking.
Climate models have consistently predicted that greenhouse warming would be disproportionately felt in polar regions, and those predictions have generally been borne out. So, if you ignore the poles, the remaining warming in March falls heavily in two regions: North America and Western Europe. In fact, the majority of the continent is buried under a color that indicates it is at least 8°C above the baseline average—GISS didn’t offer any colors for larger anomalies, or it might even look more dramatic. At the same time, however, the plot makes it clear that nothing especially out of the ordinary was going on for the rest of the planet.
Advance the time by a month, and you can see that North America has remained warm, although not quite to the same extreme. Meanwhile, the far west of Europe had cooled off, and the focus of heat had shifted well into Russia. But again, the rest of the globe was a mottled collection of temperatures much closer to the baseline average.
In April, the US cooled down as Russia got hot. Note the maximum temperatures are lower than in the top graphic.
One of the ironies here is that, even though the global temperatures are fairly typical of the last decade, the unusual spring warmth might have an outsized effect on public opinion. People in the US seem to rely on their personal experience (along with the economy) when they formulate their opinion on climate change. In this case, the citizens of the US and Europe personally experienced unusual warmth, and were more likely to have been exposed to anecdotal reports in the mainstream media. So, even though nothing special happened globally, the year so far may be perceived as an indication of a warming planet.
This is almost the exact converse of what happened in 2010, the warmest year on record. In that year, high temperatures were focused in northern Canada, North Africa, and the Middle East. The US experienced decidedly average temperatures, while Europe was slightly cooler.
Secateurs, the English way of saying “Hand Pruners”
Felco Pruner #7 Maintenance
Because this video just kicks butt.
Keep your tools sharp.
Thank You Gary Knowlton.
And thank you Wiki.
Off With Their Heads: Deadheading Perennials – Fine Gardening Article
Off With Their Heads: Deadheading Perennials
Photo/Illustration: Tracy DiSabato-Aust, courtesy of Timber Press
As a garden designer and speaker, I often talk about how foliage texture and form can provide the backbone to a perennial garden. But, as a gardener, I have to admit that I want a lot of flowers in addition to interesting foliage. Planting long-blooming perennials is one way to keep the floral display going. Deadheading—the practice of removing spent blossoms—is another way to keep your garden in flowers.
Deadheading refreshes a plant’s appearance, controls seed dispersal, and redirects a plant’s energy from seed production to root and vegetative growth. However, I do it primarily to prolong the bloom period or encourage a second flush of blooms on some perennials. I also do it to keep other perennials tidy.
Deadheading is a maintenance practice that can be done throughout the growing season, from spring until autumn. The best time to deadhead a flower is when its appearance begins to decline. How often you’ll have to deadhead a particular plant depends on the life span of its blooms, which can range from a day to several weeks, depending on the species. Weather also greatly affects a flower’s longevity. During moist, cool summers, flowers will last much longer than they will during a season of sweltering heat. Torrential rains also take their toll on blossoms.
Choosing the exact point to make a deadheading cut can seem confusing, since perennials have different flower forms. Because deadheading, like other types of pruning, is so species specific, it can be difficult to group plants into categories. For most plants, however, all you need to remember is to prune spent flowers and stems back to a point where there’s a new lateral flower or bud. If no new flower is apparent, prune the stem back to a lateral leaf.
Many gardeners find deadheading enjoyable and relaxing. In fact, for me, it’s very meditative and centering. But if you do not fall into this camp, the best way to keep from feeling overwhelmed is to visit your garden daily and do a little at a time. I’ve found that once I get into a schedule of deadheading on a regular basis, the waves of blooms in my garden can be extended by weeks or even months.
Monsanto’s college strangehold – Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/monsantos_college_strangehold/singleton/
A new report has shocking findings about the connection between corporate funding and agricultural research
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
Here’s what happens when corporations begin to control education.
“When I approached professors to discuss research projects addressing organic agriculture in farmer’s markets, the first one told me that ‘no one cares about people selling food in parking lots on the other side of the train tracks,’” said a PhD student at a large land-grant university who did not wish to be identified. “My academic adviser told me my best bet was to write a grant for Monsanto or the Department of Homeland Security to fund my research on why farmer’s markets were stocked with ‘black market vegetables’ that ‘are a bioterrorism threat waiting to happen.’ It was communicated to me on more than one occasion throughout my education that I should just study something Monsanto would fund rather than ideas to which I was deeply committed. I ended up studying what I wanted, but received no financial support, and paid for my education out of pocket.”
Unfortunately, she’s not alone. Conducting research requires funding, and today’s research follows the golden rule: The one with the gold makes the rules.
A report just released by Food and Water Watch examines the role of corporate funding of agricultural research at land grant universities, of which there are more than 100. “You hear again and again Congress and regulators clamoring for science-based rules, policies, regulations,” says Food and Water Watch researcher Tim
Schwab, explaining why he began investigating corporate influence in agricultural research. “So if the rules and regulations and policies are based on science that is industry-biased, then the fallout goes beyond academic articles. It really trickles down to farmer livelihoods and consumer choice.”
The report found that nearly one quarter of research funding at land grant universities now comes from corporations, compared to less than 15 percent from the USDA. Although corporate funding of research surpassed USDA funding at these universities in the mid-1990s, the gap is now larger than ever. What’s more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.
Influence does not end with research funding, however. In 2005, nearly one third of agricultural scientists reported consulting for private industry. Corporations endow professorships and donate money to universities in return for having buildings, labs and wings named for them. Purdue University’s Department of Nutrition Science blatantly offers corporate affiliates “corporate visibility with students and faculty” and “commitment by faculty and administration to address [corporate] members’ needs,” in return for the $6,000 each corporate affiliate pays annually.
In perhaps the most egregious cases, corporate boards and college leadership overlap. In 2009, South Dakota State’s president, for example, joined the board of directors of Monsanto, where he earns six figures each year. Bruce Rastetter is simultaneously the co-founder and managing director of a company called AgriSol Energy and a member of the Iowa Board of Regents. Under his influence, Iowa State joined AgriSol in a venture in Tanzania that would have forcefully removed 162,000 people from their land, but the university later pulled out of the project after public outcry.
What is the impact of the flood of corporate cash? “We know from a number of meta-analyses, that corporate funding leads to results that are favorable to the corporate funder,” says Schwab. For example, one peer-reviewed study found that corporate-funded nutrition research on soft drinks, juice and milk were four to eight times more likely to reach conclusions in line with the sponsors’ interests. And when a scrupulous scientist publishes research that is unfavorable to the study’s funder, he or she should be prepared to look for a new source of funding.
That’s what happened to a team of researchers at University of Illinois who were funded by a statewide fertilizer “checkoff” after they published a finding that nitrogen fertilizer depletes organic matter in the soil. Checkoffs are a common method used to market agricultural products, and they are funded by a small amount from each sale of a product – in this case, fertilizer. Richard Mulvaney, one of the U of I researchers, feels it is twisted that, in this way, farmers fund research intended to promote fertilizer use with their own fertilizer purchases.
But often the industry influence may be more subtle. Joyce Lok, a graduate student at Iowa State University, said, “If a corporation funds your research, they want you to look at certain research questions that they want answered. So if that happens it’s not like you can explore other things they don’t want you to look at… I think they direct the research in that way.”
John Henry Wells, who spent several decades as a student, professor and administrator at land grant universities sees it a different way. As an academic, he hopes that his research is relevant to real world problems that agriculture faces at the time. “When you ask the question, did I ever outline a research plan with the explicit notion of is this going to be fundable, I would say no. But I thought very deeply about whether my research plan was going to be relevant, and one of the indicators of relevancy would be if the ideas I put forward would get the attention of trade associations, private industry, benefactors, etc.”
If scientists use fundability as an important criteria of selecting research topics, research intended to serve the needs of the poor and the powerless will be at a disadvantage. However, Wells says that this is hardly a new phenomenon: land grants have existed to serve the elites since their creation in the 19th century.
“As its basis, the land-grant university was intended to cater to a narrow political interest of landowners and homesteaders – individuals who had the right to vote and participate in the political structure of a representative democracy.” he says. “Contemporarily, it is not so much that the land-grant university has been corrupted by modern agro-industrial influence, as it has been historically successful in focusing on its mission in the context of our Constitutional framework of governance. For the land-grant university, its greatest strength – a political collaboration spanning the top-to-bottom echelons of influence – has been its greatest weakness.”
Land grant universities and the USDA itself first came into being at a time when the academic view of agriculture was fundamentally changing – even if most farmers at the time ignored the advice of academics, dismissing them as “book farmers” who knew little about actually working the land. Will Allen writes about this period in his book ”The War on Bugs,” telling the story of Justus von Liebig, a prominent agricultural chemist in Germany.
“In the 1830s, Liebig began asserting that the most essential plant nutrients were nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. His theories fueled the development of chemical fertilizers and ushered in a new age of agricultural science and soil chemistry in the 1840s and 1850s. Though many of Liebig’s theories were wrong, he was the first great propagandist for chemistry and for chemical-industrial agriculture.” Perhaps the most significant of his mistakes was his belief that organic matter in the soil was unimportant.
Dozens of Americans studied under Liebig and returned to the U.S. to continue their work. Two of these students established labs at Harvard and Yale, and soon “all agricultural schools and experiment stations in the country followed their lead.” Thus, practically from the start, the elites in this country served the interests of those who peddled chemical fertilizers and other agricultural inputs – even if that wasn’t their intent. No doubt many were enticed by the prospect of founding a new, modern, scientific form of agriculture, as they felt they were doing.
The unholy trinity of industry, government and academics promoting industrial agriculture and de-emphasizing or dismissing sustainable methods has a long history and it continues today. In its report, Food and Water Watch advocates a return to robust federal funding of research at land grant universities. But government is hardly immune from serving the corporate agenda either.
Take, for example, Roger Beachy, the former head of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency in the USDA that doles out research grants. Beachy spent much of his career as an academic, collaborating with Monsanto to produce the world’s first genetically engineered tomato. He later became the founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Monsanto’s non-profit arm, before President Obama appointed him to lead NIFA.
As Schwab noted, policy is often based on research, but good policy requires a basis in unbiased, objective research. In a system in which corporations and government both fund research, but due to the revolving door, the same people switch between positions within industry, lobbying for industry, and within government, what is the solution?
Southern Magnolia Flower
Cause your plant health care blog can never have too many magnolia pictures.
