Another fine
article from Peter Williams
I wrote about
Peter’s wonderful garden last year. I also published his own article about
rhododendrons which he had previously written for the local Beverley based
coven of the Hardy Plant Society of which he is a member and regularly attends
their fine lectures. Not to mention his own!
This year I
persuaded him to go the whole hog and submit his new article to the ‘Hardy
Plant’! What a fine name for a wonderful magazine published twice yearly by the
Hardy Plant Society - of which I am also a member. Members of the National
groups and /or local groups are keen knowledgeable gardeners. The articles in
the Hardy Plant are written by real gardeners both amateur and
professional. A cut above the usual gardening press.
Don’t let me put
you off - new gardeners are well
represented in their ranks - and
experienced gardeners are only too pleased to share their skills. Please join
and also enrich your garden through their annual seed distribution!
Peter’s article
has been sitting waiting on my computer for six months. It has now been
published in the ‘Hardy Plant’ and I have been given the go ahead to republish.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Peter Williams unashamedly confesses to unnatural
gardening practices
Natural gardening and gardening
with nature are currently very fashionable ideas. We are urged to embrace this
philosophy with the assurance that, if we do, our gardening experience will be
enhanced. It is suggested that if we would only adopt these principles, the
plants and animals in our gardens would reach a new equilibrium and there would
be fewer outbreaks of pests and diseases.
I didn’t really understand
these principles, or how they were supposed to work at the ecological level, so
I started to think around the concept.
I quickly came to the conclusion that
believing that you can garden naturally is about as sensible as believing in
the tooth fairy! Now I have to say, right at the outset, that I am not a
natural gardener, and I confess that many of the things I get up to in my
garden can only be described as unnatural practices. Natural gardeners do exist, but they are folk who have absolutely no interest
in cultivating plants or land, and simply leave their gardens to ‘go wild’ or
revert to nature.
Any form of practical gardening is simply meddling with nature – and
it’s great fun and brings enormous satisfaction.
This meddling with nature takes
many forms and includes introducing species collected by plant hunters from all
over the world, or new hybrids produced accidentally or intentionally by plant
breeders. Moving plants around the globe, and searching out improved cultivars
to plant in our gardens, has always been a fundamental gardening activity –
although it has also been responsible for introducing some new pests and diseases that threaten many of
our truly natural plant communities.
In order for our chosen plants
to survive and flourish, we gardeners have to intervene on their behalf in an
attempt to suspend natural processes. Such interventions include weeding,
feeding, supporting, pest reduction, and changing the microclimate, sometimes
to the extent of constructing glasshouses and even heating them with fossil
fuels. We import/export soil and substrates; we dig and rake; we water; we
spray; we lift and store tender perennials – but as long as we have nice
irregular flower beds and wavy paths, we plant in drifts and we never use nasty
chemicals (except of course in emergencies) we may still claim to garden
naturally!
Except in an emergency |
For the sake of discussion, let’s look at three aspects of natural
gardening.
This probably means different
things to different people, but my understanding is that it is an attempt to
copy some features of natural areas and transplant them into our own patches.
For example, over many years at Chelsea, famous nurseries like Backhouse of
York and Wood of Boston Spa, created pretend Scottish Highland rock streams or
mountain screes to show the landscapers’ craft and mastery of the natural
world. Such exhibits started to decline in the mid 50s and were virtually
extinct by the late 60s, demonstrating that what’s considered to be desirably
naturalistic changes with fashion.
More recently we have seen the
rise of prairie gardening, where ornamental grasses and various types of
daisies are planted in broad sweeps at great density to create a colourful wilderness which reaches its peak in late summer and
autumn These pretend prairies must be a godsend to nursery owners and they can
look stunning in the first few years, but the difficulty of maintaining them
probably means that they won’t stay in fashion for long. A number of well known
prairie gardens have had to be replanted after just a few years because they
became dull, weed-infested and truly natural looking!
In prairie style, monardas and heleniums are densely planted for dramatic effect and weed exclusion |
Meadow gardening is another
form of naturalistic gardening, and some garden meadows do resemble real
meadows quite closely. The only difficulty is that even ancient meadows are not
really natural and require management on a large scale, by grazing at
appropriate animal densities and appropriate times of year, or by annual
cutting and hay removal. In a garden situation, on a normal-size plot,
it is extremely difficult to recreate a natural-looking meadow. In most cases
the soil is too fertile, and the advice is usually to strip off the top 10cm of
soil and start again. Even if soil fertility is suitably low, many newly
created meadows where expensive wild-flower seed mixes have been sown look for
a few weeks like an explosion in a paint factory – a riot of different colours
from the predominantly annual species in the seed mix. Then nature intervenes
and, sadly for the proud owners of these bright patchworks, the meadows never
look quite ‘as good’ again unless they are re- sown.
A contrived meadow of a commercial wild flower mix gives a riot of colour that needs replanting each year |
Perhaps I am guilty of taking a
lowbrow, practical approach, so to redress the balance I’ll turn to Sarah
Price, the current doyen of naturalistic gardeners. Ms. Price has created
beautiful gardens at Chelsea and elsewhere, and has written eloquently about
their creation. Thus she writes ‘plantings must have a sense of transparency.
Sunlight filters through the tallest plants, through the different heights and
forms; petals and grasses appear to glow from within, while the striking forms
of seed heads form strong, dark silhouettes. To be surrounded by this ethereal
sort of beauty is an almost transcendental experience.’
Now, while I really appreciate
a beautifully designed garden or border, most of my transcendental experiences
in the garden have been greatly facilitated by a glass of cold Chardonnay!
However, the serious point is that talented designers like Ms Price take
immense care in selecting and arranging plants so that they bear a resemblance
to an idealised natural environment. The gardens may well be beautiful,
desirable and give great pleasure, and that is absolutely fine, but they are no
more natural than a garden with a pin-striped lawn, rows of dahlias, an
African-style thatched breeze hut and a few eucalyptus trees.
Havens for wildlife
When I read gardening magazines
I sometimes feel I must be failing because the main thrust of my activities is not to provide a safe haven for
local wildlife. While I’m passionate about conservation and actively involved
in the Wildlife Trust movement, I don’t believe that it’s the principal role of
gardeners to create mini nature reserves. Gardens do provide very local
habitats for wildlife, but often they’re not of real importance because they’re
too small, too isolated and too transient. Sustainable nature management
requires ‘more, bigger, better and joined up’ regions, as suggested by the
Lawton Report, Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites
and Ecological Network (2010).
In fact I spend a
disproportionate amount of time attempting to keep much of the local wildlife
out of my garden. I spent the first few months
of retirement attempting to rabbit and badger-proof my garden. I had a real
sense of achievement when I completed the fencing and naively thought that the
problem was solved. I could not understand how the occasional rabbit still got
in – until the first snowfall that winter when distinctive footprints indicated
a nocturnal rabbit super-highway under my front gate. I fixed this by
attaching plastic clematis netting to the bottom of the gate that dragged on
the gravel. At dusk a week later I spotted a tawny owl on the post near the
front gate and excitedly called to my wife to come and look. When asked if she
could see it, she replied, “Yes, and two rabbits on the drive”. A short period
of observation revealed that rabbits could charge the plastic netting and get through! These invasion routes now
closed, all I have to do is find a way to prevent squirrels and mice from
eating the hardy cyclamen, crocuses and tulips that I try to naturalise in my
grassed areas, and to stop deer jumping the rabbit fence to graze everything
woody. I was dumbfounded to read an article in one of our leading gardening
magazines which gave natural gardeners tips for attracting animals, including
muntjac deer, into their gardens. John McEnroe’s famous words came to mind –
“You can not be serious!”
In the garden – you must be joking |
All these wonderful ‘natural scenes’ have been influenced by man |
Of course the animals that we
should help are the birds, bees and other insects; or, more precisely, some of
the birds and bees. Bees of all sorts are welcome, as are many bugs – lacewings and ladybirds (except of course the new foreign
invader, the harlequin), and butterflies, so long as their caterpillars eat
someone else’s plants or stay on the small wild patch that we have set aside.
Lily beetles, vine weevils, and slugs and snails give some of us nightmares, so
obviously they are not included in our invitation to cohabit in our gardens
This predator is welcome –as long it is not a harlequin ladybird |
Birds are welcome of course,
except certainly pigeons, probably magpies, and possibly sparrow hawks. On a
recent garden visit I was talking to the owner of a lovely garden when a
sparrow hawk flew through. I was delighted to see such a magnificent creature,
but the owner got very angry and explained that she only wanted little birds in her garden, and she resented spending a
lot of money buying bird food only for some of the small birds to be eaten by a
hawk. I tried to suggest that the sparrow hawk was only doing what sparrow
hawks naturally do, and that its presence indicated a healthy ecosystem, but
the owner was un- convinced. She was equally unconvinced when I suggested that
gardeners’ cats eat far more birds than sparrow hawks.
Robins and long- tailed tits are always welcome, but is a sparrow hawk undesirable or an indicator of a healthy ecosystem? |
Organic practices
Natural gardeners refrain from
using unnatural ‘chemicals’ in the garden and would certainly not use
pesticides or herbicides. I can totally understand their sentiments – few
people would want to use toxic chemicals on
their plants, especially their food plants, without thinking about it very
carefully. The problem is that sometimes it’s not possible to control pests or
weeds by natural or accepted organic methods. There are no effective organic
controls for lily beetle or bindweed, Japanese knotweed or couch grass and,
except perhaps in the smallest garden, it’s impossible to squash all the pests
or pull out all the weeds.
Biological controls are
excellent in some situations, for example, curbing glasshouse whitefly with
parasitic wasps; but it can be very difficult as an amateur gardener to obtain
or use biological systems, for instance to control the larvae of vine weevil,
while the insecticide thiacloprid (Provado) works very well. Similarly,
glyphosate (Roundup) is very effective in controlling even dense areas of couch
and, used carefully, is an invaluable tool.
Now from a biological point of
view, poisoning your neighbour and/or protecting yourself with toxic chemicals
is a very natural thing to do. Allellopathy is the ability of a plant species
to excrete chemicals into the environment that inhibit the growth of competing
plants. Couch grass (Elymus repens) is a classic example: its root
exudates reduce the ability of competing plants to take up nutrients. Highly
invasive plants like Golden Rod (Solidago
canadensis) (and a hybrid Japanese knotweed (Fallopia x bohemica) have been shown to be allelopathic.
Golden Rod escaping into the Derbyshire countryside |
It may come as a surprise to
some natural gardeners that very many plants protect themselves chemically
against grazing animals. Indeed, many of the world’s most poisonous substances
are natural plant products. The alkaloid strychnine is present in the bark and
seeds of the poison- nut tree Strychnos nux-vomica, native to India and
adjoining regions. It is very toxic to rodents and probably plays a role in
protecting the tree against rodent attack. Similarly, eucalyptus species
contain powerful alkaloid toxins that protect against herbivorous marsupials.
Some common insecticides are based on chemicals extracted from wild plants:
thus nicotine and pyrethrin (and their slightly
modified derivatives) are widely used to kill insects. Defence against insects
is precisely the role these chemicals played in the wild plant. The Victorians
knew that the damaged leaves of green laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) release
hydrogen cyanide, so butterfly collectors placed crushed leaves in the bottom
of a Kilner-type jar to kill the specimens they’d caught. The ability to
produce cyanide when damaged is known as cyanogenesis and is widespread in the
plant world. It occurs in white clover (Trifolium repens) and Bird’s
Foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and many of the world’s most common
food plants including maize, wheat and sugar cane. The amounts of hydrogen
cyanide produced are not usually great, but they’re enough to deter grazing
animals.
Sinigrin, the natural chemical
that gives brassicas their distinctive ‘cabbagey’ smell and taste, is also a
substance that is very toxic to most insects. This might come as a surprise to
allotment holders who frequently see their cabbages shredded by cabbage-white
caterpillars, but it shows that plants do not have it all their own way.
Animals co-evolve with plants, and those that can overcome plant toxicity may
have an exclusive food source. A small number of insects have become resistant
to sinigrin and now use it as an attractant; for example, the cabbage white
butterfly specifically seeks out leaves containing this chemical on which to
lay its eggs. (The whole field of plant/animal interactions is fascinating, and
relevant to gardeners: think of peonies paying ants protection money (nectar) to keep them free of aphids.)
I’m not trying to persuade you
to change your gardening practices radically, but to think about the
relationships between gardening and natural ecosystems. Gardening is one of the
few areas of life where you can do more or less as you please, and I am
encouraging you to do just that. Even experienced
Hardy Planters may not be immune from the pervasive influence of television and
magazine gardeners who have programmes and pages to fill. It is their remit to
be ‘trendy’, no matter how impractical, and their gardens have to last only a
year or two before the next fashionable planting scheme.
Don’t get stressed because your
activities may not, in the current climate, be seen as ‘ecologically sound’. Do
it because you enjoy it. Finally, just remember this – leave your garden
unattended for three weeks and it will become untidy, leave it for three months
and it is a wilderness, leave it for three years and it is a nature reserve.
Now that’s really natural gardening and is exactly what I intend to do when I
am too old to keep up my unnatural practices.
It takes no time at all for a garden to return to nature |
Peter Williams retired from teaching aspects of plant science to mildly
enthusiastic undergraduates to ‘spend more time with his plants’ and
occasionally talk about them to groups of totally enthusiastic Hardy Planters.
This article was first published in the East Yorkshire Group’s
newsletter.
The photographs are Peter's own and those of Harry Poole
The week after
Peter’s article was published he attended a gardening seminar at Askham Bryan
College organised by that other fine gardening group, The Alpine Gardening
Society. He sat next to a stranger and got talking - about the Hardy Plant
Society! His neighbour asked him how he liked the new format of ‘The Hardy
Plant’ and went on to remark about a particularly fine article by a ‘new
writer’. Peter was able to say that it was he! How nice. Peter did say that if
the comment had been critical he would have stayed schtum.
Oh, those are fighting words! Though I suppose it all comes down to definitions. I would say my garden is naturalistic, but I do not imagine that is the same thing as "nature". By definition, a garden cannot be "nature". However, my prairie-style garden has been developing for the last 12 years. It looks pretty good, in my opinion, but it also requires a lot of tending. I never use insecticides and I do find that a healthy insect population keeps down the damage done by destructive pests. On rare occasions I've used roundup, but generally I don't need to use weed killers. I do agree wholeheartedly about rabbits and deer - keep them at bay by any means necessary! On the other hand, we have a couple of species of hawks and they are rather exciting to have around. I don't mind too much if they make a meal of a songbird (though I'm happier when they dine on starling or grackle) - predation is, after all, entirely natural. In fact, I'd be delighted if a coyote moved into the neighborhood, that would help with the rabbits.
ReplyDeleteYes Peter is fearless. He gets so agitated about the rabbits I think he would like your coyote!
ReplyDeleteNaturalistic is a good description Jason of what many of us try to be - well at least in our gardening!
I think I have addressed every point made in this post on natural gardening almost verbatim. I myself have a "natural" garden in the sense of many native plants, no chemicals, judicious use of water, and providing shelter, food and safety to insects and wildlife, among other conservative practices - but in no way is that really nature. The space is to small and never connects with other like gardens making a wildlife corridor - which wildlife actually needs. I write extensively on this and ruffle many feathers. As a designer with 30 years experience, and many "gardens" under my belt, I think we need to look at climate and go with "climate tolerant plantings" for the sake of having plants live comfortably in our gardens to provide for both wildlife and aesthetics.
ReplyDeleteThirty years, you must have started early! That is meant as a compliment Donna!
DeleteIts fun to ruffle feathers!
I enjoy your writing and fully approve of working within the natural limits of your locality.
Peter and I are perhaps more ready to use a limited range of chemicals than you, but certainly believe in working with nature.. I think we more favour plants of the world than you do and are very happy to grow your native plants that are aliens here.
I wonder if your latest post ruffled any feathers!
DeleteWhen I met Peter at your Open Day he mentioned this article to me so I am so pleased that you have been able to publish it. I wholeheartedly agree with pretty much all the views shared in the article particularly relating to "naturalistic planting", the latest trend being prairie gardening. Being a keen alpine gardener in my early garden years I had a quite extensive "rockery" but it was built on an existing slope so I suppose it was naturalistic rather than growing alpines in troughs or pots, it looked like a piece of a mountainside. My current garden is surrounded by trees which create peculiar growing conditions so I might well feel justified in saying that I have a woodland (usually in inverted commas) garden. The question is how many people have a prairie or a meadow in their back garden? Not anyone that I know, so unless one can claim to have the vast open space of a prairie surely the planting is not truly naturalistic but an attempt to create a garden based on an idea. I sometimes wonder given the many plants available to us why there is this constant need to develop new but I suppose the horticultural industry has to be self - generating much in the same way as most others. I just find it a shame that most of this year's crop of new plants and ideas will be a distant memory in a couple of years time and that many a new aspiring gardener, who has been sucked in by the marketing of these trends, will soon become disillusioned and loose interest when things go wrong.
ReplyDeleteTaking up your point about fashionable trends, I am told that centranthus was plastered all over at Chelsea three years ago - but who speaks of this lovely but rather weedy plant now?
ReplyDeleteI actually love my rather generous clump that seeds itself around in the Worsbrough cemetery. I am posting tomorrow about spraying there!
On the other hand I was sucked into trying ammi after Chelsea two years ago and hope to get this naturalised!
The point I am trying to make Roger is that you were not sucked in to growing Ammi just in the same way as I was not sucked in to growing Angelica 'Ebony' for instance, both big fashionable Chelsea attractions, they were merely plants that were brought to our attention by the media, but being knowledgeable we knew exactly what we were getting as opposed to the poor novice who is guided or more likely misguided by the horticultural media. In the case of Centranthus it is a plant which sort of fits in with the native species trend, Valerian is a well recognised name, although it actually originates from around the Mediterranean and I used it a couple of years ago unaware that it had been exposed to such a great extent.
ReplyDelete'Exposed' is the right word when valerian thrives so well on the windy seaside cliffs!
DeleteWell, to answer some of you - I do have a meadow in my back garden and it gives great pleasure and very little work. (see http://veddw.com/north-garden-elizabeths-walk-meadow-orchard/)
ReplyDeleteI mention this because I think it is well worthwhile, if not very important to keep all the ancient grassland we are able to and I would hate anyone to be put off by negative talk about them.
And I spend a lot of time trying to discourage people from digging them up in order to create the dayglo meadow which might better be described as an arable field with no crop, just weeds. Which of course, is hard to maintain.
You might also wonder - are naturalistic gardens naturalistic? Michael King wrote an excellent piece about that: http://thinkingardens.co.uk/articles/naturalistic-planting-is-anything-but-by-michael-king/
Xxxx Anne
psst Peter has a lovely grass area with naturalised bulbs and some wild flowers
DeleteThanks for your your comments and kisses - don't get many of them!