The MN wildflower blog

After posting a recommendation on our Wildflower Facebook page of a local oak savanna remnant (Helen Allison SNA in northern Anoka county) that provides some wonderful  views of the broader landscape of just a century or more back, a fan made this comment:

“but we really don’t know. I often wonder, driving through the county – what was it really like, 200 years ago?” – Arne

Here is my response:

Arne – I have to disagree.  While it should be obvious we cannot experience the past in the present, we can increasingly “know” it in great detail. Scientific  study and it’s tools, such as the launching of the Hubble space telescope in 1990 have pealed back billions of years of history for our knowledge and understanding of the entire Universe in far greater depth than could have been imagined even 50 years ago. Likewise the ancient study of plants – botany – continues to inform our “knowing” the world around us – past, present and future.

We do have enough accumulated  records and data to know what types of plant communities existed and what plants made up those plant communities thousands, even millions  of years ago let alone just two hundred years ago. While becoming exceedingly rare in this period of exponential  environmental change we still have remnants of those communities here and there for our study, understanding and appreciation. That’s fairly accurate “knowing” just through historical documentation. When you visit a place like Helen Allison where that plant community that existed 200 years ago is still remarkably intact you can literally know it by seeing it with your own eyes. That “knowing” is far more meaningful when you are able to discriminate between native species from those that have invaded much of what little remains of the “natural” landscape in just the past 50 years and seeing they are not there (at least not yet).

There are swales and hollows at Helen Allison that nearly completely obscure any vision of the modern age. What we will never know is what it was like to step out of that hollow and have the knowledge that the vision extends beyond the horizon. To know and appreciate that you will need to apply both your own unique human imagination and your uniquely Human Spirituality that the study of native plant species inherently evokes.

Aldo Leopold’s words of just sixty some years ago were perhaps prophetic when he suggested; “It might be wise to prohibit at once all teaching of real botany and real history, lest some future citizen suffer qualms about the floristic price of his good life.” With today’s revival in interest and popular study of botany, native species and their histories, the questions cannot help but be asked; what is it we once had, what we have lost, what we are losing and what are we getting in return for those losses? That at least portions of society might experience some cultural angst in this matter is long overdue.

While all of history is the story of change over time – as provided for the evolution of species itself, until some 200 years ago, this change in Minnesota’s (and most of the World’s) landscape was so incremental over time that those who viewed the land back then could only envision it as timeless, regardless of how they imagined utilizing the resources of the land to secure their children’s future.

What they could never have seen that we can so clearly see today is how quickly so many of those “timeless” resources disappeared in just a mere 200 years with the majority of those losses within just the last several decades. What we know that they could never know was how severely and quickly, human activities can change the entire surface of the planet and its future. They could only look upon the landscape as a source of hope for their children’s future and it appeared to be theirs for the taking. Unless you are in complete self denial, I don’t see how you can look at the landscape today, with even a little amount of informed knowledge of the state of things without feeling at least a little bit of concern and trepidation for the future.

In this age of unprecedented “knowledge”, never before has the security of our children’s future been in such grave doubt.

Petyer

Jeff from Stillwater writes:

I started out with tilling my lawn into a garden 10 years ago. The first couple of years I was getting your typical weeds like any gardener. Then in one year I had 30 cubic yards of dirt brought in and I got my hands on free manure,not sure from what animal. I know they do have donkeys and goats. So I am not sure of the two it came from.My garden was a field of green by the middle of summer and I couldn’t keep up to this weed. It took everything over. Its the shaggy soldier(Galinsoga quadriradiata). I used round twice last fall and sprayed my whole garden. This year when they got 8-10 inches tall, one could not see any dirt it was so bad, I sparyed round up again,they all died. A few more came up about 4 inches and alot more are about 1/2 inch tall so I sprayd them again on 7-18-11. This is the only year I didn’t till my garden. What can i do to get rid of this weed. Thank You, Jeff M. – Stillwater, Minnesota

Dear Jeff:

Galinsoga quadradiata is an annual weedy species introduced from the near tropics that does quite well in our severe winters. Each plant can produce thousands of viable seeds in a single season. The art and skill of gardening is nothing if not “weed control”. Both perennial and annual weeds present their own challenges and of the two, annuals can be the most frustrating.

shaggy soldier - Galinsoga quadriradiata

While people have expressed their dismay at my recommendations for use of herbicides, I’ll argue that like many other modern inventions, they are a useful tool in solving weed problems and their environmental impact minimal if used correctly. For dealing with many aggressive invasive species such as buckthorn, oriental bittersweet, etc., etc., etc. the medicine is not nearly as environmentally toxic as the disease.

In your case, the use of glyphosate (Round-up) is inappropriate for the problem. Round-up will quickly kill most annuals but has no impact on the seed bank and usually within days you have germination of a whole new crop. Repeated applications just dump chemicals into the environment to no good effect.

Round-up is a very effective translocative herbicide and should only be used against perennial weeds. Once you have knocked them out (and yes – it may take several timely applications) you should never have to make an application again.

Future Woodland Wildflower Site

On this site that is planned for a future woodland wildflower garden, we sprayed the entire area with both Round-up and Trimec – mid-summer 2010 – for persistent perennial grasses, woody shrubs and perennial bitter nightshade. Following treatment we did extensive grubbing of larger rootsystems of like woodbine that our herbicide selection wouldn’t handle. We followed this up with a heavy layer of free woodchips dropped off by a local tree company. Thee woodchips will persist for several years as a weed barrier which in time helps wear done the seed bank. We are also getting in small trees to create the future shade needed by the species we’ll fill it in with over time. We still need to do regular hand weeding of emerging seedlings here and there – especially silver maple – but the work isn’t over whelming. As you can note we’ve thrown in some vegetables to get some productivity out of the site for now. However woodchips are tremendous consumers of nitrogen for the first few years and we’ve spot placed 10-10-10 fertilizer around the vegetable hills to over come this initial shortfall. Once we get our hands around the seed bank and can start filling in with desirable native shrubs and forbs we should never have to apply herbicides or fertilizer to the site again. That doesn’t mean the planting will become completely self sustaining at some point. Weed pressure from invasive species like Canada thistle and even dandelions require diligent long-term management. It will never be any other way with land ownership.

For annual weeds in the home landscape – nothing replaces diligent mechanical control. Since you are battling the seed bank and not underground perennial roots systems, it is a long term commitment. The “average” seed bank life is 7 years.

While there are “pre-emergent” herbicides marketed to the home gardener, I have rarely seen them effective. These are designed to kill seeds as they germinate in the top several inches of the soil and are effective for only one season. In theory, once put down they create a barrier on the soil surface preventing seedling production for that season.  But if that “barrier” is disrupted or disturbed for any reason, new seedlings immediately erupt through the breach. This type of product is what is used in crabgrass preventer, with fairly good success if applied correctly, in the home lawn. One reason for this is that it is easier to avoid disturbances in a lawns surface soil than it is in a flower or vegetable garden.

In a vegetable or flower garden with bare soil between plants, not only does a lot depend on both timing and conditions of application, but the open bare soil is much more subject to disturbance. Heavy rains such as we’ve seen this year can easily leach out the herbicide or erode it away in patches where new weeds quickly proliferate. The new weeds will require mechanical removal which just adds to the disturbance and soon you are back to square one. You just dumped some chemicals into the environment and you still have weeds everywhere.

I’ll state here and now that “gardening” is a persistent daily activity where the task is to be more persistent than your adversaries – in this case the annual weeds. If you approach this task like a weekend warrior with several major assaults during the growing season and then only when you have lost all track and sight of what you planted in the first place – you will never get a head of the eight ball. If this still works for you even though you are frustrated to tears – keep up the good fight? Myself, I would never tolerate this prospect forever and would quite gardening all together.

1 year old vegetable garden

Having said all this, people might ask why I don’t apply the same persistence against persistent perennial weeds like Canada thistle, quack grass, yellow nut sedge, Kentucky bluegrass and even common native milkweed – I can assure you I’ve tried. You have to be some kind of self-flagellating saint to take on that mission. Perhaps you might win someday but odds are you won’t. I prefer a little medication and get it over with so I can get the area into useful production as soon as possible. This is why I stated earlier that annuals can be more frustrating than perennials. With perennials there are effective herbicides that used in the short term provide effective long-term or even permanent control of the target weed species. The annual weeds will be enough of a challenge for anyone who basically views life as requiring some kind of penitence.

In the image of the 1 year old vegetable garden – this site was treated with glyphosate in late 2010 to knock out perennial quack grass and the original turf grasses – kentucky blue and fine fescue then hand tilled in spring of 2011. The soil contains a huge seed bank of crabgrass, foxtail, corn speedwell, oxalis, purslane and prostrate spurge. The mulch used here is one-year old rotted straw saved from a strawbale gardening project last summer. Time spent weeding is minimal to non-existent.

From the sounds of your letter, you have applied glyphosate enough times that perennial weeds should be non-existent. Put the danged stuff away and apply some elbow-grease. The next step is a nice little garden hoe – my two favorites are the hula-hoe and a small triangle hoe. Even these are only taken out when I’ve been a little remiss at my daily routine. I spend at least one hour everyday in the garden and most weeds are pulled by hand. Another tool I use is my grass clippings from what we still have in turf. Just a ½” layer of clippings is far more durable and effective a barrier to annual weed seeds than any pre-emergent herbicide I’ve attempted. If weather or other disturbance creates some gaps during the growing season – next time you mow the lawn – throw a little more in there.

New strawberry bed

This new strawberry planting was treated with glyphosate in summer of 2010 to remove brome and reed canary grass. Here the mulch used is from bi-weekly clippings from the lawn. The site requires monitoring and an occasional weed pulled here and there. Grass clippings do not create the same nitrogen stress that woodchips do and in fact return most of their nitrogen load back to the soil within weeks of putting down.

We’ve begun our neighborhood introduction to alternative lawns by starting small with this isolated boulevard patch on the corner. This site was sprayed with glyphosate in late 2010 and then twice again this spring for a heavy infestation of quackgrass. I can not over state the requirement to eradicate aggressive perennial grasses from a site before you attempt putting in any natives. The grasses will come back from any viable underground rhizomes you’ve missed and they will degrade the planting over time. I think cities would be less resistant to this idea if better implemented. Too many start out as good intentions but eventually look like eye-sores when not prepared properly in the first place. This was seeded with side-oats grama in May of this year and is a pure stand what you see in the picture. I have rigorously hand weeded out all of the annual foxtail and crabgrass seedlings. While a pain in the ars initially it has helped speed up the establishment of a close canopy of native grass in less than three months time. While I had not expected to so soon, I’ve already planted a couple of native forbs (smooth & sky-blue asters, showy goldenrod and royal catchfly) that should bloom for me this season. While i should never have to water, fertilize, treat with herbicides or mow this “flower garden” again. If I don’t diligently tend to this and any “garden” over time, nature’s course will work to over run it with any opportunistic weedy species should I give it that opportunity. This is true of whatever you plant for whatever purpose.

Boulevard prairie garden

Gardening is an active life style that like anything else productive requires perseverance and commitment. In your case it will take at least 3-4 years before you see a significant reduction in weed pressure from the shaggy soldiers. It is a “learned practice” that, like anything – once you get the hang of it – it doesn’t seem so much a task as perhaps more a moment of meditation. If you need motivation at being consistent over time, keep in mind that if you work hard at it for a number of years and then one season go into relapse; you’ll basically have thrown all your hard work out the window. While it takes on average seven years to completely diminish a seed bank, it takes only one year for the weeds to replenish it.

Good luck and may the Ancient Spirit of Gardening be with you.

Petyer

29 November, 2010

James W. Sanders, Forest Supervisor
Superior National Forest
8901 Grand Ave. Place
Duluth, MN 55808

I am concerned about the proposed land exchange between the USFS and PolyMet Mining Inc. This is nothing about a “fair” land swap – but as noted – a “connected action” to a proposed environmentally destructive project. Also, while suggesting otherwise, the proposed exchange does not in any way demonstrate that it meets, let alone exceeds, four of the Forest Service’s Strategic Plan goals.

The present federal lands proposed for exchange are contiguous by definition and in that capacity act as a unit providing ecological and environmental benefits to wildlife, the public and the planet. As it sits immediately adjacent to private tracts with an extensive history of environmental degradation, it serves as an important buffer to the on-going and persistent negative environmental impacts previous land use has created. Removal and conversion into expanded environmental degradation only moves the buffer further out and exponentially subjects additional environmental resources, both public and private, to harm.

Regarding these goals as now exist on the federal lands:

For the goal to “provide and sustain benefits to the American people (desired outcome is forests with sufficient(?) long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society), it fails completely – this is a de-forestation action. The present disposition of this tract meets that end, and cannot be improved upon. Any inference to economic benefit cannot be quantified within a forest management paradigm and becomes an equivocation to purposes anathema to the environmental spirit and vision. What economic benefits can be referenced are predetermined – the lion’s share going to outsiders – Minnesota resources, both mineral and environmental – offered up to internationals.

To “conserve open space” – this is a qualitative, not quantitative statement. The present space is already completely open and carpeted with a rich ecologically diverse and living epidermis – a protective skin. This land exchange would create more open space that by definition is erased – non- protective – non-living – to perpetuity.

To “sustain and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities” – this already exists on site. The present conditions are the definition of sustainability and open for public recreation. Exchanging  them away is to remove sustainability and no public recreation of higher value is created. It is a self serving presumption that this exchange translates into more people using better land elsewhere.

In “maintaining basic management capabilities of the Forest Service by reducing landlines and mineral conflicts” – this maintains nothing and the small numerical net gain of decreased landlines does not equate into better management capabilities. The site is now under full Forest Service management and should & can basically be kept that way. While everyone should move and live to reduce all conflicts, mineral extraction is inherently conflictual with ecological and environmental goals and should not be pre-empted or avoided. The Forest Service’s mandate by definition lies in management of forest as forest. That private (?)mineral wealth is overlaid by public forest is no imperative for the Forest Service to abrogate its duty to conflict. It is no secret that other potentially rich and exploitable mineral deposits and proposed projects lie under other public forest resources. To acquiesce to this exchange sends an ominous warning to future public forest interests and brings into question the Forest Service’s ability, vision and integrity of securing and managing our forest resources for our children.

Of the non-federal lands offered for exchange:

It cannot be shown that adding a single foot of these private holdings to FS management expands or improves upon FS mission and goals.

By and large all of these pieces of private property are paradoxically irrelevant in their exchange while being intrinsically imperative to the long term FS mission. Whether their ownership has fallen inside or outside the public domain has little impact on their environmental function as it exists today. They are small and relatively underutilized and generally un-exploitable. The regional geography, topography , ecology and economy is necessarily the predominant management template under which they exist. Adding that they mostly lie isolated  and scattered between predominantly state, county and federal ownership, present regional public management, pragmatically,  is the de facto management strategy implemented. That most are essentially not managed at all, for these reasons any exchange becomes nearly mute in public value. “Enhancement” is theoretical only. The FS cannot demonstrate their incorporation improves their lot significantly. Even what private use or abuse might incur is marginal, and obscene as a comparison to the already highly demonstrated and purposefully intended future corruption of present federal land.

Of the five tracts, the fifth implies more merit than the rest in evoking its proximity to the BWCA. But here too, reality trumps theory. That it is near an important entry point is of no consequence for FS inclusion and cannot be demonstrated to be an area enhancement at all. McFarland lake is and will likely remain mostly outside of federal jurisdiction because it is deemed and desired of higher private value. As ownership and public accessibility presently stand, it has not even been demonstrated that enhancement is required let alone to be realized. If these parcels are of such great consequence and justifiable, another more appropriate and less destructive acquisition strategy can easily be implemented. That being said, the FS to date has not fully demonstrated to my satisfaction that it has either the vision or resources to effectively manage its present holdings.

As a square foot for square foot swap this exchange is unjustifiable and untenable.

Of the other “connected” issues (tissues?):

While the FS would like to separate its self from the greater environmental issues contested in other public arenas, by only considering a narrow numerical management exchange value, in admitting it is a “connected action” it cannot do so. In just the land exchange alone this is a net loss of public forest resources at the greatest conceivable cost. But this great net loss is connected to even greater influences that bear heavily upon this decision.

That mineral owners find a method to take what they have come to possess by their economic means, remove it and leave the rest would greatly solve many problems – they cannot. That the FS would abrogate their mandate and keep the forest would be the end of conflict – they cannot. The FS bears as great of scrutiny for the ultimate consequences of their actions as the mineral owner are to be held for the ultimate consequences of theirs.

Nowhere is a land exchange measured for the waste disposal consequences that the FS cannot separate itself from politically or geographically. Ground and surface water contamination concerns are not extreme and additional nearby public and private holdings will be impacted – both within the vicinity and downstream. There is high risk inferred to federal lands outside of the exchange acreage, both in the present and a very long term future. There is no mitigation in any land exchange for this failing.

Regarding my own personal connection and interest to the Arrowhead region, I am a botanist, ecologist and imaginographer. I have and will travel extensively throughout the region documenting and recording plant species and their rapidly diminishing habitats. The only expansion of my activities this mine would affect would to be an unfortunate witness to the further encroachment of invasive weed species such destructive activity inherently causes. At present the FS is bedeviled with this problem beyond its means already. There is every imperative against this mine, in this place and in this time.

A century old next year, the Weeks Act was a loud public voice of understanding in addressing these concerns and enacted into federal law for that reason. Having spoken once – must it be made to speak again? A FS decision supportive of this land exchange is precedent setting, smears tailings mud on the face of an evolving democratic public ideology and marks a significant de-evolution of public ideals. As great as the depth and magnitude of the permanent physical scar this action will incur on the Earth’s skin, it will also forever call into question the tenure of the USFS’s moral vision and integrity.

Sincerely,

Peter M. Dziuk

Actaea rubra
The backdrop was a sea of wild ginger, Asarum canadense, in the woods at Battle Creek park.

This morning I found a message in my inbox from a fellow in Ohio:

“In any temperate climate, rich-soil, damp, slightly to somewhat shady place (like much of Minnessota’s environment and any low area between two rivers)… this ivy is FAR easier to maintain as a groundcover than grass. It won’t get tall, it won’t go away, and it displaces the other plants in it’s place. It will dominate a yard with only slight maintenance, if the yard is the right conditions and it is mowed two or three times mid-late in the season.

This ground ivy is here in N. America because it was brought here from Europe by settlers who desired it’s many valuable qualities. It was especially useful to the settlers for it’s various herbal/medicinal and culinary purposes. It is very fortunate for us that this excellent plant has taken root in the wilds surrounding the midwestern N. American forests, and so shall remain available to us into the distant future. ”

Sorry, Mr. Ohio, but this doesn’t fly.

As much as I’m not a fan of blue grass lawns, I cannot condone encouraging a highly invasive non-native species as a substitute.

I don’t consider it fortunate at all that it has taken root in the wilds. It displaces natives that are a vital part of the food web, severely threatens diversity, and costs millions of dollars each year trying to get it under control.

How is that a good thing? A few people finding some medicinal benefit to it out ways all that? I don’t think so.

I hope he never moves to Minnesota.

Dicentra cucullaria
It looks like this species is almost done blooming for the season. I only found a few flowering plants left at Coon Rapids Dam today.

Trillium nivale
A rare species in Minnesota, found around Hastings.

Pulsatilla patens
Pasqueflower is now blooming at the Baxter/Brainerd Northland Arboretum. Got several good photos but I liked this one best. Thanks to Theresa Klaman for leading us to them.

On another note, we found last year’s remains of a fair number of Goodyera tesselata (Tesselated Rattlesnake Plantain) in a Jack Pine stand along SR64 north of Motley, along with some pearly everlasting, a couple different species of pussytoes, bearberry, and quite a lot of Indian pipe. We’ll be back there later in the season to see how things are coming up. Right now I am more interested in the pussytoes than the orchid because it may be a species we don’t have yet. We’ll find out in another month or so.

Today I received an email:

Subject: Polygonum cuspidatum roots are required!

Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to purchase the roots of Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed) for planting purpose. Could you please inform me that you can supply it or you know someone others supply it?

Thanks!

Yours truly,
SL, Ph.D.

Note the Ph.D. I was stunned at the request and wondered if this person had spent any time at all looking around the web site. If they had I think it would have been pretty obvious that we wouldn’t honor such a request even if we could.

My reply:

Polygonum cuspidatum is a highly invasive species.

It should not be planted anywhere in the U.S. under any circumstances!

Within moments I received this:

Thanks for your e-mail. I am in Canada. It is not a banned plant in Manitoba. Do you know where I can obtain the roots of this plant?

Heavy sigh. How can someone smart enough to earn a Ph.D. have so little common sense?

K Chayka

Today, Minnesota’s Wildflowers submitted their 2010 Legislative funding initiative to Senator Satveer Chaudhary, Chairman of the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee, requesting $300,000.00 for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s state weed program.