Showing posts with label natural landscaping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural landscaping. Show all posts

Good news


A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I blogged about the depressing case of Deborah Dale, a past president of the North American Native Plant Society whose Toronto garden was destroyed by over-zealous officials who did not understand or appreciate her natural landscaping.

So imagine my joy upon checking the NAPS website this morning, to discover that a couple in Ottawa just won a battle to preserve their own half-acre meadow of pollinator-friendly plants! On July 25, 2009, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the city of Ottawa had rescinded a bylaw that would have forbidden Hank and Vera Jones from retaining their environmentally friendly, wildlife-friendly plantings.

Equally encouraging is the amount of public support the Joneses received: They received legal advice and representation from the Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Ottawa; the Ottawa Citizen published an excellent editorial and an equally excellent opinion piece supporting their cause; the Green Party wrote a letter of support; and the Citizen also published several letters to the editor supporting their cause. For a cheer-making experience, I highly recommend reading some of the articles, letters, and editorials the Citizen has published:

Farewell to the lawn (opinion piece)

Sustainable Sites

Above, Monet's garden as painted by Monet. Image courtesy of Dover Publications.

A VERY ENCOURAGING EVENT HAPPENED last November: Publication of a 180-page draft of a report sponsored by the the United States Botanic Garden, the American Society of Landscape Architects and the Lady Bird JohnsonWildflower Center. Together these organizations have put together the Sustainable Sites Initiative, a science-based effort to create guidelines for sustainable landscapes and restoration projects. The draft report was based on more than 2 years of research by experts in fields ranging from hydrology to human health. You can download it at the Sustainable Sites website, with comments being accepted until January 20 and the final report scheduled for publication this summer. Ultimately this process is supposed to lead to the development of criteria for determining whether a site is sustainable.

If you'd like an overview of the report from a gardener's perspective, check out "How Green Is Your Garden? A New Rating System May Tell You" by Anne Ravner in the January 7 issue of the New York Times. Ravner visited the United States Botanical Garden in Washington and uses a tour of the garden (with luscious photos, of course) to illustrate sustainable-gardening tips such as using native plants, avoiding pesticides, and using "right plant/right place" planting to put plants where they will receive the right amount of water naturally. For even more detail on the botanical garden's sustainability initiative, see this page at the Sustainable Sites site. There is also a page on conservation at the botanical garden's own website.

My Forlorn Front Yard: 2007 Wrap Up

EARLIER THIS YEAR, I began a chronicle of my efforts to turn my forlorn front yard into a native plant garden. In the first installment, I listed the problems with the space, ranging from a very awkward size and shape through overhead powerlines to a cheap, lazy owner. In the second installment I vowed to try to create a space that would "reflect the natural ecology of the region." In the third, I described a basic approach for designing any space according to natural principles. In the fourth, I described how to prepare soil for planting.

In the fifth installment, I described an inexpensive way to cover bare soil using native plants available for free from roadsides and nearby fields. This approach imitates nature by using what ecologists call "early successional" plants to vegetate an area quickly. These hardy plants are adapted to spread rapidly in areas that have recently been cut over, burned, or otherwise (to use another ecologists' word) disturbed--that's why they do so well on roadsides. But though many people regard them as weeds, they serve a very important purpose from an ecological point of view: They hold soil and water in place, preventing erosion, and many of them also help to prepare the way for longer lived, slower growing plants that are the next phase in the natural development of a disturbed site.

MFFY Photo Gallery

And finally,
I put up a link to an album of photos showing the progression of this space from summer of 2005, when work began with delivery of a load of compost, to spring of 2007. But that was last May. What has happened since then?


The photo left was taken in May 2007. This area was covered in cardboard and compost, then planted, in 2005. Then I made a serious mistake by neglecting to weed in 2006.

As a result, by spring of 2007 I had a healthy population of weeds and, worse still, weed seeds in what had formerly been fairly clean soil. The photo left shows the area after weeding: I was left with a lot of healthy little native plants (mostly Potentilla, wild strawberry, and Sysirinchium) and some big patches of bare earth where various weeds had been removed.

The photo at the top of this post shows the same space just a few months later, in July. As you can see, once freed from competition those tiny plants had grown luxuriantly!

The photo below gives a closer view of the native groundcovers that had taken over the front yard by mid-July. The logs in the photo (which were supposed to outline paths but were quickly overgrown) give a sense of how deep the coverage was. It would have been deeper except that I used an electric weed-whacker to shear the groundcover in areas I wanted to use as paths.


Unfortunately, I did not weed whack the entire front yard. The result of not weed whacking became a lot more obvious just a month later, in August. Here you can see that the unwhacked areas of the front yard are now dominated by tall natives, especially goldenrod and, to a lesser extent, wild bergamot. I like goldenrod, but it is very common in this area, and most people regard it as a weed. Also it is very aggressive. I came to regret having let it spread, although I do think the photo below is quite pretty.



As I look back on this year's effort, I still think the concept is sound. The July photos show that a lush, thick cover of green can be achieved using common native plants. My experience also shows that at least in the sunnier areas, these plants can choke out almost all invasive non-native plants. Only in the shadier spots, where the native groundcovers did not do so well, did I have crops of thistles, dandelions, and other nonnatives.

On the other hand, the execution of my plan was weak. This lazy owner, true to form, did not put enough time into weeding. Had I done a thorough weeding in 2006, I probably would not be struggling with patches of nonnative invasives now. Because they've had a chance to get established, I may have no choice but to go after them with--gasp--Roundup. But first I'll try a lot of digging in early spring.

Another issue is aesthetic. The front yard is supposed to be a compromise zone--wild enough to make me happy but not so wild that visitors will think I've let it go. I failed to meet that goal: The front yard, though mostly native (which is enough to satisfy me), looked far too wild for most tastes. The reason is that I don't like to use the weedwhacker: It wastes electricity, and there is always the risk of harming an animal that's hiding among the plants. Unfortunately, by not weedwacking enough I let the native plants get too tall, and I also let the naturally tall natives (e.g., goldenrod) take over. As a result the front yard never looked tidy; by fall, even though I was fairly pleased with it, I knew that most people would think that it was completely out of control.

Next year, if the weeds cooperate, I'm going to make more of an effort to keep the natives at a "lawnlike" height. Can I have a native front yard that someone other than me will like?

A bad thing, but a good test

TORONTO HAS DESTROYED A PRIVATE GARDEN. Blogger Jodi DeLong alerted me this morning to a story on the Treehugger website about a woman whose 10-year-old native plant garden was destroyed by the city of Toronto. Gardener Deborah Dale is a biologist and past president of the North American Native Plant Society. She is also a public speaker who has been employed by the city of Toronto itself to give seminars on natural landscaping! Before-and-after photos show a perfectly lovely native garden in the "before" photo and, after the city crew was done, a scene of devastation. Knowing how distressed I can get if someone so much as steps on one of my plants (unless, of course, it's me), thinking about how Dale must have felt makes me want to weep.

The silver lining to this cloud is that many gardeners, even ones who aren't particularly keen on the natural style, are outraged by what the city did. Dale is a good representative for the native plant movement--a good "poster girl," as they say. And it appears that Canadian courts have sided with homeowners in cases such as these in the past. (Among the comments on the Treehugger story is a very interesting post by a Douglas Counter, discussing these court cases in detail. It was posted on August 31, and if you live in Canada and are at all concerned about these issues, I recommend that you look for it.) If Dale decides to take this to court (and it appears that she will), her chances of winning seem good. In the meantime, controversy over this incident may help to educate people about the value of natural landscapes.

If this incident distresses you as much as it did me, you may want to pay a visit to the Wild Ones organization. They have been leaders in the movement to get "weed control" laws changed so that natural landscapers do not have to endure what Dale has had to put up with. Their website includes model ordinances that allow for natural landscapes and tips on how to get your municipality to update its thinking on this subject.

In the long run, however, sad events such as this are a reflection of a much larger problem, which is the fear and hostility with which too many people still approach the natural world. This allows not just the trashing of someone's private garden but, ultimately, the destruction of the ecosystems on which we and other animals depend for life.

Reading the comments on the Treehugger article (most of which were highly supportive but a few of which were sadly ignorant) reminded me of an article I wrote about a year ago for the online magazine Terrain, in which I talked about the extent to which many people are dominated by their fear of nature. Believe it or not, the article is pretty funny (and it's not just my friends--hi Jodi--who tell me so). Here's a pertinent quote:

"A surprisingly large number of homeowners seem to think that nature wants them dead. This is reflected in a large number of questions that a natural landscaper must learn to answer cheerfully and with a show of sympathy for the anxiety that lurks beneath.

"Will a natural landscape cause allergic reactions, make the home vulnerable to forest fires, or attract criminals who will lurk in the shrubbery and mug/rape/murder anybody who walks by? Will children or pets be scratched by thorns or poisoned by delicious-looking (but deadly) berries? How about venomous yellow-and-black insects (referred to almost universally as ‘bees,’ although only some of them are)? Won’t they sting and, as day follows night, bring on respiratory failure followed by cardiac arrest? How about snakes? Bats? (Snakes and bats don’t have to do anything; their mere existence causes fright.) How about rodents? What’s the name of that disease you can get from mice? Avian influenza hadn’t hit the headlines when I was doing this kind of work but I’m sure that birds have now joined the list of potential assassins.

"Now, the hazards these homeowners fear are mostly real, and a well-behaved natural landscaper is quick to say so. But they are unlikely. Except in rare circumstances, you are about as likely to be killed by a natural landscape as by any other environment in which you find yourself (except possibly your bathroom—which, according to reports, is a lot more dangerous). There is no more reason to worry about being killed by your naturalized front yard than to worry about being run down by a car when you step into the street. Yet even the most devil-may-care pedestrian may blanche at the thought that planting a flower might, in turn, attract a ‘bee.’

"Eventually, the majority of homeowners find reason to not practice natural landscaping, no matter how many inducements they’re offered. They retreat behind closely clipped lawns with perimeters of shrubs that have been pruned into geometric shapes. Do I need to explain just how unnatural this is, how few animals can live here, how much environmental pollution the maintenance of these spaces can cause? Let me make just one point before moving on: A manicured landscape can be as hazardous as any other. Many of these hazards involve the very pesticides, herbicides, and power tools used to keep these spaces looking—and I use this word in its most ironic, air-quotes sense—safe."