The Giving Tree

Like many little girls and boys in the 80’s, it was in grade school that I first read Shel Silverstein’s book, The Giving Tree.  A thick hardcover, it featured Silverstein’s characteristic prose, illustrated by simple black and white line drawings.   Despite the plain pictures and the intimidation I felt by the sheer length of the book (64 pages!!), at the age of eight I figured I’d take a stab at it.  My teacher had recommended it, and since it was part of our book club reading, I could get a gold star once I finished reading it.  (If only gold stars were enough to coerce adults into doing things!)  And so, I opened the bright green cover and began reading.  “Once there was a tree… and she loved a little boy.”

When I finally got to the last page, I was terribly disappointed.  This talking apple tree had given everything she had to a little boy – first her apples, then her branches, and then even her trunk.  As the selfish boy grew into a selfish man, the magnificent tree was reduced to a mere stump.  At eight years old, I knew I liked trees, but I sure didn’t like stumps, selfish kids, or this book!  I let the book fall to the floor and stormed out of my room to go play with my My Little Ponies instead.

Today, The Giving Tree is broadly accepted as a timeless parable about generosity and selfless love.  But when I reread the book, now twenty years later, I think it is saying more than that.  First published in 1964, The Giving Tree seems to be questioning humankind’s role in the world and our current predicament.  Silverstein is calling into question our relationship with nature – a relationship that takes and takes from nature, that does not think about future consequences, and that is never satisfied.  Silverstein seems to be warning us that our bleak future is one filled with grumpy old men sitting on tree stumps.

Photo: Stumps in Washington D.C. empty lot

But this is not the way it has to be – it is not man vs. nature.  All the things we do in this world do not have to be at the sacrifice or to the detriment of nature.  While it is true that trees provide us so many things absolutely free, they don’t have to be reduced to stumps to do this.  We all know that living, breathing, beautiful trees give us oxygen, food, and shade.  They prevent erosion and clean our waters. 

Photo: Beech tree at Bayard Cutting Arboretum, Oakdale

But did you also know that trees can improve the viability of our communities?  Scientists are beginning to find out what we already knew – that people like trees and feel more comfortable around green space than concrete.  In a 2003 study that compared residents in low-income building projects in Chicago, it was found that residents who had trees outside their doors, had stronger social ties and used the outdoors more.  Furthermore, residents who had trees also felt a greater sense of safety and experienced fewer crimes in their neighborhood.*  Stronger communities, less crime, and healthier neighborhoods are what every government strives for, and far too often fails.  Instead of building a stronger police force, Chicago and other cities should be investing in the planting of trees, especially in poor neighborhoods which are often devoid of greenery.  The author of the study suggests that trees may play a pivotal role in drawing residents outside, which enables informal contact among neighbors and stronger social ties to develop.  Whatever the mechanism, it is amazing that trees can have such a positive, measurable impact on our neighborhoods and communities.

Photo: Stump and seedling of famed Fairhaven Beech at Planting Fields Arboretum, Oyster Bay

All trees are truly giving trees, providing us with never-ending environmental and social benefits.   This Arbor Day, if you see a stump, plant a tree in its place.  And if you don’t see a stump, plant a tree anyway.  You’ll be sure to get a gold star!

*Source: Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology.  Journal of Arboriculture 29(3): 148 – 154.

The Food Movement

Last week I went to Long Island’s first ever Small Farm Summit held at SUNY Old Westbury.  As I drove to the college passing by mansion after mansion of Long Island’s Gold Coast, I wondered, why would there be a Farm Summit where there are no farms?  Long, long, ago, this area had been converted into grand country estates of New York’s million and billionaires who didn’t want anything to do with dirt.  In all of Nassau County, home to over 1.3 million people, there are a measly 130 acres dedicated to farmland.  New Yorkers in this area have been severed from agriculture for generations.  Would anyone even come to this Farm Summit!?, I thought.  Heck, at least I got out of the office for the day…

After I picked up my registration packet, I headed into the college’s cavernous auditorium.  To my surprise, it was already stuffed to the brim.  People of all ages were eagerly awaited to hear one of the nation’s most famous farmers, Joel Salatin.  As I squeezed into one of the last remaining seats, Joel began to talk.  In front of an astounding audience of 500, Joel described himself as being in the “redemption business: healing the land, healing the food, healing the economy, and healing the culture.”  Owner of a 550 acre “beyond organic” family farm in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, Joel has become one of the nation’s greatest spokesmen for healthy food and healthy farms.   With the crowd pressed to the edge of their seats, Joel fervently addressed the food crisis we’ve gotten ourselves into through commercialized, large-scale farming.  By growing food on a small scale, mimicking nature, and focusing on soil health, farming no longer has to be “dirty” – it can actually improve the environment and improve the body and soul.  At the end of the hour, Joel let out his final battlecry, “Don’t deny ME, the right to choose healthy, REAL food!” as the impassioned audience clapped in standing ovation.

Photo: Done right, farming can actually improve the soil. Riverhead

Clapping amongst a crowd of 500 in one of the nation’s most populous and wealthiest counties, it was in that moment that I realized demand for healthy food and farming has truly swelled and morphed into a full-fledged national food movement.  In my wildest dreams, I never thought a southern cattle rancher would EVER command such a huge audience, especially in a place less than 15 miles from the NYC border!  Likewise, I never would have thought my 23 year old cousin from Brooklyn would help create an urban farm upstate. 

One of the reasons for the momentum of the food movement is that it has become all-inclusive – something that every individual can rally behind.  You don’t need a toothpick, a straw hat, and a shotgun to be involved in this new-age farming.  Nor do you need dreadlocks, a tie-dye shirt, and Birkenstocks.  The food movement is a new back-to-the-land movement that demands everyone have access to local food, non-processed food, fresh food.  It is a movement that demands access to food that doesn’t cause diabetes or obesity in our children or cancer in adults.  It is a movement that demands access to food that doesn’t wreck havoc on our environment or on our local economy.  In essence, it is a movement that demands for food to be held accountable.

Photo: Suffolk County's small farm vegetables and fruits can be found at farmer's markets throughout Long Island and New York City

In his lecture, Joel Salatin envisioned a world where every parcel of unused space is used for farming.  In this utopian world, along roadways, in parks, and in backyards, the earth would be teeming with life, giving forth bountiful harvests of fruits and vegetables.  While hoeing alongside the LIE might not be the most practical idea for obvious reasons, backyard farming is certainly gaining hold.  According to a recent survey conducted by the American Society of Landscape Architects, over 80% of residential landscape architects reported that their clients were interested in food or vegetable gardens (including orchards, vineyards, etc.).  Additionally, nearly one in five landscape architects reported that they are replacing part or all of traditional grass lawns with food or vegetable gardens.* 

Photo: An edible garden display. Hicks Nurseries, Westbury

What we are witnessing is a food revolution before our very eyes.  In truth, we can all be farmers.  Perhaps even some of those Long Island Gold Coast mansions now have their own vegetable gardens (maintained by the gardener of course  : )   )

*Source: http://www.asla.org/land/LandArticle.aspx?id=30853

Pruning Myths

There is a myth that trees don’t need to be pruned because they have been growing perfectly fine by themselves in the forest for thousands of years.  But the fact is, trees DO need pruning.  Trees are pruned for their own benefit as well as for our benefit.  Pruning can reduce the incidence of disease, insects, and decay, and can even promote the development of a strong branching structure that resists strong winds.  It has been said that pruning is one of the best things we can do for a tree, but one of the worst things we can do TO a tree.  In other words, pruning done right will be highly beneficial for a tree, and pruning done wrong will be highly detrimental to a tree. 

Photo: This ornamental Okame Cherry (Prunus 'Okame') flowers on the previous season's wood, so live branches cannot not be pruned in winter or early spring without sacrificing some flowers. Nassau County Museum of Art, Roslyn.

When people say that trees don’t need pruning, I bet they are thinking of trees they have seen that were “butchered,” with branches and limbs indiscriminately cut and lopped off, with complete disregard for the tree or the viewer’s eyes.  And they are right – trees don’t need this type of “pruning.”  I too have seen far too many examples of this type of hack job, also known as topping.  Not only is butchering terrible for the tree’s health and longevity, but any Joe Schmo with a big enough chainsaw can do it.  This practice has tarnished the reputation of other highly trained and certified tree care workers who don’t do this malpractice.

Photo: Topping trees like this Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana) is a form of arboricultural malpractice, and is one of the worst things we can do to a tree. Mineola.

Although poor pruning can lead to hazardous, aesthetically unappealing, poorly functioning, and short-lived trees, there are many good reasons why trees need proper pruning.  Let’s look at the big picture – in general, most trees evolved in a forest, where competition for light and space is relatively high.  These conditions typically produce trees that have a single trunk, thin and short lateral branches, and branches concentrated towards the top of the tree.  But in landscape settings, the conditions are often the opposite – competition for light and space is relatively low, producing trees with multiple trunks, large and thick lateral branches, and long, overextended limbs along the length of the trunk.  These qualities can lead to a structurally unsound growth form over time, and increased risk of storm damage as the tree ages.  Therefore, one of the main goals of pruning is to develop a more “forest-like” tree form – a tree that has a single dominant trunk and smaller, shorter branches that can withstand high winds.    

Photo: Trees that develop multiple trunks have a higher risk of splitting and breaking under high winds, like this 'Princeton' Elm (Ulmus americana 'Princeton') that has developed a hazardous crack. Oyster Bay

Other important reasons to prune a tree include providing clearance, improving a view, reducing shade or wind resistance, reducing risk of tree failure, maintaining health, and improving aesthetics.  Whatever your reason for pruning is, it’s very important to establish a clear objective, because you don’t want to remove any more live branches than you have to.  Live branches mean photosynthesizing leaves.  If you are removing live branches, it means you are removing the food source of the tree.  A healthy tree will be able to endure a short diet, but will not be able to endure starvation.  So prune as few live branches as needed in order to get the job done.  Some reasons that don’t justify removing any live branches include, you haven’t pruned in a while, you’ve gotta do something in the garden, you wish the damn tree would just grow faster!, the tree is declining and you don’t know what else to do, or it’s easier than removing or replacing the tree. 

Once you have determined a good reason for pruning a tree, the next logical question is, how much should you prune?  Which brings us to the next myth – it is NOT better to remove a whole bunch of branches all at once, than the same amount of branches spread over time.  The fact is, removing live branches is stressful for any tree, especially very old trees.  Being patient, and removing a small amount of branches during multiple pruning sessions over a few years, is less stressful for the tree than removing all the branches to be pruned all at once.  As a rule of thumb, you should never remove more than ¼ of the live foliage in a single year. 

As for timing, dead or broken branches can be pruned anytime – really as soon as possible is best.  This is because pruning out dead branches will potentially prevent further spread of decay and disease, and will minimize the risk of branches falling on targets and people below.  In general, it is best to prune live branches when they are dormant in winter or early spring, before the buds begin to swell.  At this time, it’s easy to see the branch structure of deciduous trees and any defects that may be present.  The impact on tree growth is minimized because the tree is dormant.  Pests are also dormant, so it can minimize any potential diseases or insects.  Furthermore, pruning wounds have the entire season to begin closing over. 

The worst time to prune live branches is during or soon after the initial growth flush – a great amount of stored energy is expended to produce new foliage, shoots, and root growth every year.  You want to allow at least some time for that new foliage to photosynthesize and produce new food and energy for the tree.  Also, you want to make sure to not prune ornamentals in a way that minimizes flowering.  If a tree or shrub blooms on the new, current season’s growth, then pruning live branches in late winter or early spring will not reduce flowering.  But if a tree or shrub blooms on last season’s old wood, like the forsythia and flowering cherries, pears, and plums that are blooming now, pruning live branches in late winter or early spring WILL reduce flowering.  It is best to prune trees and shrubs that flower on old wood after flowering and after the leaves have been out for a few weeks and photosynthesizing. 

Photo: Properly pruned trees and shrubs will be both healthy and beautiful. Baiting Hollow

Another common pruning myth is that certain species of trees, including maples and birches, should not be pruned in early spring when sap flow is heavy.  Sap flow, or “bleeding,” is not like human bleeding – although unattractive, it has little negative impact on tree growth. 

The last pruning myth is that wound dressings should always be used after pruning to accelerate wound closure and reduce decay.  This is another instance where trees are being anthropomorphized – covering a wound will not help a tree like a band-aid helps a person.  In fact, pruning wound dressings and paint can actually negatively impact a tree by interfering with the pruning cut closing over properly.  This practice was common fifty or sixty years ago, but better science continues to guide the practice of arboriculture. 

When you prune your trees this season, avoid these pruning myths and pitfalls, so that you can create healthy, long-lived, and beautiful trees!

Complete Fertilizer - Forgetaboutit!

“In order to maintain the health of your plants, you need to regularly fertilizer with a balanced, complete fertilizer,” so says almost every gardening reference out there.  A long-held belief, routine application of complete fertilizer is viewed as a successful way to provide TLC for your lovely plants and lawn – a boost to help them grow big and strong.  Routinely using complete fertilizer is also viewed as a necessity among gardening enthusiasts.  Complete fertilizers supply three essential plant nutrients – nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) – and may also supply micronutrients in smaller quantities.  The general public is wholeheartedly in agreement with the need for complete fertilizers, as bags and bags of N-P-K fertilizer fly off the store shelves despite steeply rising fertilizer prices.  And who can blame them?  I mean, who really wants an incomplete fertilizer?

But most times our gardens and lawns don’t need complete fertilizers.  Too much of a good thing really isn’t a good thing.  In particular, the plant nutrient phosphorus has been shown to be at sufficient or excessive levels for many areas of the East Coast, including Long Island.  Continually applying fertilizers with phosphorus to these areas is not only a waste of money, but also a serious threat to the environment.  Stormwater runoff which carries phosphorus into our lakes and streams causes significant water quality issues and can lead to drinking water contamination and fish die-offs.     

Photo: Reducing the use of phosphorus fertilizers enhances the health of our surface waters. View from Center Island. 

Results from over 1500 soil samples from home gardens in Suffolk County show that we are severely overfertilizing our lawns and gardens.  These samples were submitted by landscapers, arborists, and homeowners, and were analyzed over a five year period by Cornell University’s Nutrient Analysis Laboratory.*  Based on the results, almost all home gardens in Suffolk County will not need supplemental phosphorus (80% of samples tested high or very high), and about half will not need supplemental potassium (over 50% of samples tested high or very high).  Instead, we need to focus on adjusting soil pH, maintaining adequate nitrogen levels, and adding organic matter like compost.  Results indicated that 60% of samples had less than 3% organic matter, which is crucial for holding water, nutrients, and air in the soil. 

Indiscriminate, routine use of complete fertilizers is not needed, and can negatively impact plants and the environment.  The only “routine” thing we should be doing in regard to fertilizer is taking a soil test.  A soil test will tell you which nutrients you need to supplement and how much.  A soil test helps identify problems, while providing the foundation for fertilizer recommendations and a sound nutrient management program.  AND all the numbers and fancy charts will surely impress your gardening friends!  This type of “prescription-based” fertilizing is much better for your plants and the environment.

Photo: Fertilize your plants based on the results of a soil test. Soil sampling at a Christmas Tree Farm in Huntington.

Prescription-based fertilizing is really taking hold.  In 2007, one of the largest tree care companies in the United States began requiring its arborists to take soil samples and fertilize trees and shrubs based on the test results.  Next year, in 2012, a New York State law will go into effect that prohibits the use of phosphorus on lawns except when a soil test demonstrates that additional phosphorus is needed.  (Phosphorus will still be allowed on newly established lawns during the first growing season to help stimulate root growth.)  This state law will also require retailers who sell any fertilizer with phosphorus in it to post warning signs about the restriction as well as the potential negative environmental impacts of phosphorus.  Not surprisingly, the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, the world’s largest marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden products, just announced last month that it will remove phosphorus from its lawn fertilizers by the end of 2012, including the market-leading Scotts®Turf Builder® brand.  Our lakes, streams, fish, ornamentals, and lawns will be healthier because of these initiatives.   

Photo: A healthy lawn and a healthy environment are both possible when you fertilize according to best managment practices.

We shouldn’t think of fertilizing our lawns or gardens without phosphorus or potassium as “incomplete” fertilizing.  Instead, we should think of it as “prescription-based” fertilizing – we are providing our lawns and gardens with exactly what they need based on a soil test, while minimizing environmental harm.   And complete fertilizer?  Forgetaboutit!    

For more information on best management practices for Long Island lawns, visit:  http://healthylawns.suffolkcountyny.gov/bmps/bmps.htm

*Source: Rao, R., D. Moyer, Q.M. Ketterings, and H. Krol (2007). Suffolk Soil Sample Survey (2002-2006). CSS Extension Bulletin E07-46. 34 pages.