Let's Get Something Straight

PROLOGUE: Since related to the main topic, I will here again note that perennial is one of the most misused terms in gardening, and the misuse vexes me. Perennial (n. or adj.) literally means a plant capable of living for several years (specifically >2), whereas ephemeral, annual and biennial cover the rest. Thus a "perennial garden" technically can include trees and shrubs which are both types of perennials, as are many vines. FORB is the correct botanical term for a broad-leaved herbaceous plant that is not a graminoid (grass, sedge or rush). Forb is an old word, proper, and it should be used. For example, daylilies are perennial(s) and a type of forb. Oaks are perennial(s), too, but are not forbs, instead they are given the special designation tree (i.e., a woody perennial with a single stem that can exceed 20 feet tall). Should we then say daylily forb to correspond with oak tree? -- I think not -- and why not just say oak(s)? (tree being redundant unless referring to age or size). As for the conventional excuse you know what I mean (when calling it a perennial garden and them perennials). I DO NOT -- would have to speculate. I am all-in for clarity and precision, and forb helps accomplish that. Furthermore, the distinctions are manmade and even the seemingly solid binary designations tree and shrub are flawed -- Now, on to the essay which this month will have two parts, the first applied, the second more a critique.

PART I. A common gardening problem is installing a specimen (including other than plants) such that they are not vertical when compared to the world. And, since most perennial species self-correct, I need only refer to trees, but not all trees. Some tree species and cultivars are naturally crooked -- their genetic constitution dictates that these specimens were never going to be straight (e.g., weeping or contorted although, if one did a line of best fit, even some of these could be considered vertical). -- Not surprisingly, Nature's plantings all start good, although various factors can affect the outcome.

The not straight problem is often the result of haste. Planting can be labor intensive, so I often put it off until near the end of the day which then sometimes causes it to be done less carefully. Tired, want the task done -- time for an adult beverage (medicine) and a shower. However, the problem usually is correctible until the specimen has had enough time to anchor itself with new root growth into the surrounding undisturbed soil but, even then, one can occasionally and subsequently sever, lever and pull (adjust the specimen) to a more vertical orientation. -- Sever, lever and pull rhythmically reminds me of the well-known law firm Dewey, Cheatem & Howe :) Thank you, Three Stooges. I also smile at Ditcher & Hyde (divorce law) -- sometimes Ditcher, Quick & Hyde -- as well as Harness, Dickey & Pierce (this one is/was real, Michigan).

Phototropism (literally movement towards light) can help correct the orientation, but this plant behavior also can produce and/or exaggerate the problem (i.e., can cause a correctly oriented specimen to develop lean towards the stimulus). This post planting reorientation is especially common when the light source is mostly unidirectional (i.e., shaded on one side). The pronounced favoritism (lean) also can manifest in the branching, causing a vertical specimen to become lopsided -- pruning can help mask the appearance (i.e., until the specimen becomes too big to manipulate). And the mistake, the misalignment, will become more noticeable as the specimen grows. For example, Japanese white pine (Pinus parviflora, top pic above) and Korean fir (Abies koreana) are two of my favorite central Indiana hardy conifers. When older, both have are asymmetric in a way that is pleasing to my eye. This asymmetry causes them to have a front, back and lateral sides, but the determination is barely or not discernible in young/small specimens. By the way, the orientation problem is one of the few disadvantages of starting with small stock -- the shortness makes it harder to accurately determine vertical. And the orientation can be accentuated if, as in the pic above, one (me in this case) guesses wrong and plants with the front towards maximum light -- genetics and phototropism working in concert. There are several outstanding P. parviflora cultivars, but two of my favs are 'Glauca' and 'Fukai' (pictured). Smallish by nature and slow-growing, the species is commonly used for bonsai, especially 'Adcock's Dwarf.' -- Notice also in the same pic (to the left and planted on an incline) a 'Gold Cone' (Juniperus communis) that isn't gold or vertical -- off by only a couple of degrees but frustratingly noticeable. The evergreen to the right (nearer) is the exceptional J. virginiana 'Canaertti.'

Related, strong, long-term, unidirectional wind, such as one might see in alpine situations can cause abnormal one-sided growth referred to as krummholz effect. Both krummholz and phototropism are acquired characteristics (i.e., not inheritable, although the wackjob Russian {faux}biologist Lysenko, who counseled Stalin and caused the starvation of millions, might have suggested otherwise).

I have made the mistake of not planting vertical often enough that I made a tool to help me orient specimens better. The device is a small level attached to a 4-ft straight metal rod, painted so it would be obvious (see bottom pic above). I insert the rod in the ground close to the specimen's trunk -- I spin the rod to reposition the level so as too make sure of the verticality. I do this check at the end of the planting process allowing a final adjustment as the fill is compressed. I usually call this heeling in, but that term has another longstanding meaning (i.e., temporary storage method for bare-rooted material. My friends and super gardeners Lisa and Dan Burnham call the technique tamping. I tamp with my heel :) NOTE: It is important to check the alignment from two, good, stand back vantage spots separated by 90 degrees since every specimen has two vertical planes. And the vertical concern is more important for some specimens or objects (e.g., a truly vertical feature close-by, especially behind and in the same sightline). As for the specimens established and too big to correct, they serve as a continual reminder of my failure to attend to detail and/or to follow-up, although I sometimes do something to mask the annoyance. The bottom pic above, an askew rodent damaged Eastern or Canadian hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), is a spectacular squat variety (pendula 'Sargent's Weeping') that will never be tall, so not a problem. When just planted, then barely two feet high, the slant was hidden by the size, draping branches, as well as my end of day carelessness and failure to evaluate until too late, i.e., established. Over the course of two years now, using an anchored rope (which see) as well as careful root loosening and severing, I am attempting to get the trunk back to a more vertical orientation -- relaxing and resetting occasionally in order not to damage the trunk -- but to date with only moderate success. I will continue.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Be careful with what and when you do a task because somethings cannot be undone, and the undoing (if possible) is precious time that could be given to other tasks. Also, as I note in the 17 Commandments (#XVI) near the end of my Ranting book, prevention (avoidance) is always better. I have gotten better at heeding my own good advice, so should you. And yes, there is such a thing as bad advice, much/most of it not experiential (merely conjecture).  As for good advice, doing a task correctly the first time is right up there with don't eat nails.

PART II. The Mad Botanist is a realist, but I also have a keen sense of humor. Yes, at times I wish that the attempted humour in my social and gardening commentary came off more like the brilliant entertaining lines from some of the many great Jewish comedians, but that is not me. Furthermore, while my occasional offerings contain wit and insight they also often have an edge. Some consider this demeanor offensive, I find it soothing and necessary -- in case you have not noticed, the craziness out there continues to grow and I feel compelled to react. Much of the madness is delusion, enticingly salted with facts and apparently irresistible propaganda. Alas, the profound ignorance is not surprising since most people seem incapable of objectivity (i.e., unbiased judgment). Want the best outcome choice? TAKE WHAT YOU WANT (THE BIAS) OUT OF THE FORMULA. Instead, we tend to create the narrative we want while not looking hard for contradiction (the cracks and inconsistencies), or we simply dismiss them -- gardening and life in general.

WE need a good talking to and, before I continue, let me assure you that, unlike many, I do not have the DTs nor am I trying to profit from a story based on half truths. I am merely trying to promote objective assessment of native species and the invasive problem in gardening and the conservation sector. Much of the associated stupidity is driven by the absurd notion of making America pure -- a sort of rejuvenating cleansing -- after the damage we are causing. BEWARE, much of what is being said and believed should be prefaced with "in theory" or "it would be nice, but...." Be leery of the information, even when the messenger seems to be experienced enough to know better, to be trustworthy, sometimes even highly credentialed. And know this, a "native" planted in your garden is not a native there -- out of CONTEXT! Illusory correlation. Your garden is manmade. The native craze is not hurting but careful observation and the math reveals the curative efforts of the nativists to be inconsequential, even in toto. Why? The believers (1) grossly overestimate the scope and (2) they presume the "natives" are at home in the garden. While I wish they did, those plants DO NOT function the same there.  It's called reality.  In our gardens they are isolated and missing Nature's touch, the special symbiosis we cannot create. As Aristotle noted more than two millenia ago, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." It is something like putting flour, sugar, butter, eggs, vanilla extract, salt, baking soda, and chocolate chips on the counter, even in the correct quantities, and calling the collection chocolate chip cookies -- there is still special specific method and time to factor in, and we do not know either! Bottomline: realize and accept that your desire, your want DOES NOT equal validation, and make-believe is exactly what it means. Remember the well-known idiom, "appearances can be deceiving?" What we have here is yet another example. To drive the point home, I will reshare a powerful line from Richard Powers' (The Overstory), perhaps "the greatest flaw of the species [human] is its overwhelming tendency to mistake agreement [desire] for truth" and, as stated above, lack of or inadequate objectivity.

In closing, here is appropriate paraphrased wisdom from The Brothers Karamazov (Dostoyevsky). I like to refer to it as THE PARABLE OF THE FOOL. It is easier for a man to lie to himself than anyone. That man, believing his own lies, thereby has great difficulty discerning truth and is more easily offended when confronted with his mistake(s) (and unwilling to reconsider). The fool falling into the common trap that all one need do is believe harder. The magic that makes the longing (the desire) seem real. This failing is a fault of all faith healing, including the puritanical phytofascistic kind -- unaware and curious?, refer to my Aug 2023 Rant entitled PHYTOFASCISM. Unfortunately, as Voltaire stated, "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere," or similarly, in Paul Simon's powerful passage from The Boxer, "still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." -- Clearly we have some work to do. More medicine, please.