A Changing Landscape
Wormy Matters
Charles Darwin did some of his best work lying on his belly in a grassy meadow. Not daydreaming, but closely observing the lives and work of earthworms. All this lying about eventually lead to the publication of his final book, The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms. Darwin calculated that earthworms brought 18 tons of nutrient-rich castings to the surface per acre per year, in so doing tilling and aerating the soil while rendering the nutrients more accessible for plant use.
I wouldn’t find that many earthworms at work in my own grassy meadow. The last glacier, which receded about 12,000 years ago from the northern parts of the U.S., including here in the Hudson Valley, wiped out all the earthworms. Darwin’s meadow was spared because glaciation didn’t reach as far south as where Darwin’s home eventually stood.
Not that there aren’t now any earthworms here. Mostly, these are non-native species that arrived over the past couple of hundred years and continue to arrive as fishing bait, ship ballast, and in soil clinging to the roots of transported plants. Some native earthworms may also have made it up here from New Jersey. Not many, though, with their estimated top travel speed of less than 6 yards per year.
These non-native earthworms are of concern because of the rapidity with which they gobble up organic matter. Their voracious appetites threaten the mountain laurels, rhododendrons, and blueberries that thrive in the organic matter — the leafy mulch — that blankets the forest floors in our nearby Catskill and Shawangunk Mountains.
Those invasive species could effect a change in the landscape we view as we drive along mountain roads and hike the trails.
Grassy Matters
Back to my meadow, which I have also spent a lot of time observing, but from a standing position, usually with a scythe.
Most years the meadow receives a once a year mowing, usually in late autumn, with a tractor. (Early on, I mowed it all summer long with a scythe but the rich soil encouraged lush growth that resulted in tennis elbow. I still scythe parts of the meadow, in moderation.) That once a year mowing is meant to forestall the encroachment of woody plants. In this part of the world, open land typically reverts to forest.
At its best, my meadow presents a lush sea of green that contrasts nicely with the close-cropped areas of lawn near my home. A sinuous path mowed through the meadow, tracing out a different route each season, invites walking through it for more intimate exploration. (I refer to this as “Lawn Nouveau” in the grass mowing chapter of my book, The Pruning Book.)
Through summer, pale pink milkweed blossoms dot the meadow. Come late summer, purple flowers of bee balm cap the sea of green grass like ocean whitecaps. And then, later and on into autumn, various species of yellow goldenrod bloom in succession. In the cool of the morning, dew and morning sunlight bring sparkle to the show.
Grasses Return
A couple of seasons ago I noticed that bee balm and goldenrod were getting increasingly sparse, as were the grasses. Each year increasing amounts of multiflora rose, wild blackberries, poison ivy, even an occasional staghorn sumac were honing in, paving the way to a forest.
Last summer I decided to tip the balance back to meadow. My plan was simple; all I did was mow the field regularly to lawn height. Grasses, which are monocotyledonous plants with their growing point just below ground height, are pretty much the only plants that tolerate regular mowing (or, in the case of prairies, burning). Mow, and grass will come.
This year, meadow grasses are already growing thickly and a couple of feet high. Looking closely, I see very little poison ivy and friends. I will be interested whether or not bee balm and goldenrod appear onstage later, in summer. Another season or two may be needed before they make their appearance.
Inevitable Changes
Our forest flora are dynamic. The nearby mountain laurels, rhododendrons, and blueberries, meadows, all landscapes, in fact, are not forever, even without human encroachment. I’m not trying to maintain my meadow in a romanticized primordial state; I just like the look of the grasses, bee balm, and goldenrods.
The meadow also has a practical side. My scything provides hay for compost (along with some horse manure, a waste product of a local stable) and mulch. Taking the hay from limited and different areas each season allows time for the soil to regenerate itself.
Aquatic Matters
Rain, Rain Go Away; And It Did
Now that this spring’s incessant rains have stopped, we can settle in for dry weather. I hope.
Yes, I should be careful about what I hope for, but plants and people generally enjoy clear, blue, skies. For plants, those days mean plenty of light — actually, more than enough, but no harm done — for photosynthesis, which translates to better flavored fruits and vegetables, and conditions inimical to fungal diseases.
A plant only benefits under these conditions, of course, if it also has enough water at its roots. To that effect, yesterday, in celebration of the second clear, sunny day, I turned on and checked out the drip irrigation system that provides that water to my vegetable plants and blueberry bushes. (With mulches and choice of appropriate plants, all other plants are on their own.)
Despite the drip irrigation and self-sufficiency of other plants, some hand watering is called for. Trees and shrubs, their first year in the ground, for instance. Also, newly set out vegetable or flower transplants need assistance until their new roots reach a wetting front. The wetting front gets deeper and deeper as a soil dries out. Even with drip irrigation, the wetting front recedes from the ground’s surface with distance from each drip emitter, taking on the shape of overlapping ice cream cones in the soil with their high points right at the surface where an emitter is dripping water. Newly planted seeds likewise need aquatic assistance until they sprout and their roots dip into the wetting front.
A Good Can Is . . .
A hose and a hose wand is one way to get water to needy plants, but for places where it’s not worth the trouble of dragging a hose, a good watering can is just the ticket. You think that a watering can is a watering can? Not so. A quick browse through the web reveals a slew of watering cans differing in style and, hence, ease of use. I’ve tried out a few over the years and, of course, have my favorites.
Size matters. I want a watering can that’s large enough so incessant re-filling isn’t needed for its typical jobs, but not so large as to be unwieldy when filled with water, which weighs in at over 8 pounds per gallon. For houseplants and occasional light jobs, 1.5 gallons works well for me. For more extensive watering, 2 or 3 gallons. The self-serving recommendation in the ad copy for a 3 gallon watering can suggests, “Buy two for a balanced load.” Actually, not a bad idea.
Next, I look at where water exits. Some, usually houseplant watering cans, have merely a spout. Other eater cans have a rose, with little holes for the exiting water. 
Especially for watering seed flats and small seedlings, a rose needs to be gentle enough to release water sufficiently fast without washing soil around or crushing small plants. 
Some debris is bound to find its way into any watering can and thence to the rose, which needs to be removable and easily cleared. Watch out for thin, plastic roses, which are bound to crack after a few cleanings.
Speaking of cleaning, I like a can with an opening large enough for me to reach into. Then I’m able to just scoop out a leaf or a twig that found its way inside without waiting for its journey to the rose. Too big an opening, though, and water splashes all over when the can is carries; one watering can that I saw on the web — an open metal can with a spout — takes this to the extreme!
The attachment of a watering can’s handle affects its balance when carried or used. Ideally, you’re not struggling to counterbalance the can in either case.
Finally, there’s the material out of which the can is made. I’m wary of any plastic watering can. Haws has been manufacturing quality watering cans since 1886 but even their plastic watering cans are not worth the plastic they’re made from; I’ve had two that either cracked or leaked. A copper watering can is expensive but will last just about forever.
And the Winners Are (in My Opinion) . . .
As stated, I have some favorite watering cans. Despite what I wrote in the previous paragraph, three of my four favorites are made by Haws. One is the 1.3 gallon, metal can, more specifically the “Bosmere Haws Slimcan Metal Watering Can, Green”. What to say? Nothing more. It has all the characteristics I seek in a watering can of this volume.
My other two favorites, also Haws, are the same, each with 2 gallon capacity and the same long-reach style and look as the 1.3 gallon Haws. The 2 gallon cans are galvanized, not painted, on their outsides.
(Galvanized steel does eventually rust. A few years ago, one of my 2 gallon Haws developed pinhole leaks. I’m not complaining; the cans are 30+ years old. I reached inside and dripped some Gorilla Glue, which is waterproof and spreads as it dries, over the holes. That repair is still good after 5+ years!)
Up above, I dissed plastic watering cans — yet another of my favorites is a plastic can, a 3 gallon “French Blue Watering Can”. This one is a thick plastic that seems very crack resistant. It also fills the bill in other ways, especially its balance, which is especially important when I’m wielding a can that can hold 24 pounds of water.
One More
Oh, there’s one more watering can that I really like. It’s more like a watering jar than a watering can, with a capacity of about 1/2 cup. It was purchased at a craft fair. And it is copper. I use it to water my bonsai. Mostly, though, I like to look at it.
