To Mulch, or not to Mulch?

[Bundle 2]

Mmmm...according to Marcus B-T

 

" The cardboard not only is a physical barrier but also because it is high in carbon but low in nitrogen tends to lock up the free nitrogen......"

 

I didnt find I could make much sense of the science he recited ( page 8 of this thread ) although he was clear that finely chopped barley straw covered with thin cardboard or paper and an organic mulch was the way to go.....IIRC

 

 

Edit.....Sorry to say it looks finished David...cant win em all I guess!

Edited May 15, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Meep]

Really?:001_smile:Thats good news. Any docs to prove- not that i disbelieve, more for educational purposes.

 

I'll have a look in my office and will post once I've found it, if i remember right the benefits of using fresh mulch is something to do with the cellulose breaking down.

[Lee Winger]

Carboard is ok cause Monty Don says so! if it works on his runners its ok for trees..

[Meep]

Really?:001_smile:Thats good news. Any docs to prove- not that i disbelieve, more for educational purposes.

 

Ok can't find the one i was thinking about:cursing:, but this is will do, look a page 245 for the Nitrogen bit.

 

Sorry its another long document but i think this answers a lot of questions about mulching

JEH 25(4) 239-249.pdf

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Firstly this has to be one of the best threads going, and glad i have found it, wicked thread monkeyD and I really do envy your working life and environment.

 

I know many of you would dissagree with my views on this, and thats not a problem, but I would like to add my view, wether appreciated or not!

 

Firstly, there can be no doubt that mulching is a benificial excersise, it is after all mimicking a build up of soil organic matter not discimilar with a peak forest scenario. The health and diversity of the root soil interface plays a massive role in the recycling of nutrients, freeing them up and as a consequence the pressence of a complex community of organisms in the rhizosphere keep pathogenic colonisers to a natural limit by predation.

 

A great proportion of our tree stock is subjected to various human activities, the worst two being compaction and UREA, yes thats right I said urea! especialy in parks and busy towns.

 

Mulching increases aerobic conditons enabling many benificial organisms to continuosly deal with the infulx of unaturaly high levels of feaces and urea waste products. If you doubt the significance of these factors in the soil of our green spaces there is a great deal of study and project data to confirm this, one case in particular that is quite horrifying.

 

Why just yesterday I was in a 54 acre wood and kneeled down to investigate a root gulley showing signs of dysfunction, only to find myself quickly reeling back due to the stench of urea, probably both human and canine. This was a mature beech well off but beside a path.

 

Compaction due to foot traffic and high levels of feacel and urea generate conditions that stress a tree and also due to a lack of a healthy and diverse comunity of soil organisms enables pathogens like Kretzschmaria deusta, Armillaria sp etc to attack unhindered by predation on thier mycelia by soil organisms, and the tree in a stressed state cannot deal itself with the invasion.

 

Mulching our tree stock, especialy in our towns and parks is not something we should be debating, it is the ONLY way to go, it is holisticly, ecologicaly and bilogicaly essential for the health and retention of our urban tree stock, full stop.

 

As if that wasnt enough, maintaining a healthy diverse rhizoshpere generaly, assists in drainage and will prevent wide spread flash flooding as our already over stressed and compacted soil profiles fail to absorb heavy rain.

 

The question is not wether we should decompact and mulch, the question is why are we not doing it and promoting its benifits as though our lives depended on it!

 

Now to this case in point, my views on reductions and transport distances are now well known, I think it would have been of great benifit to this prunus if a 30% reduction had been carried out as part of the overall attempts to invigorate this tree, so i have no issue with the light work to its crown, in fact i would have gone further.

 

Some will claim that a lack of photosynthetic area would result in a lot of stress worsening the health and vitality, but I feel that this would have been compensated for by a reduced transport stress and reduced amount of energy required to maintain a larger woody structure.

 

This is two fold, it doesnt need to wall off infection to the die back, and also doesnt need to apply reserves to formation of reaction wood to continuosly conform to the Axiom of uniform stress over its structure.

 

but the tree was self reducing i hear you cry, yes it was but stresses change over the age of a tree in late sennesence wood is embrittled and altered and this increases the effects of wieght and loading and requires compensation. Similar to compensation of a decayed region by swelling.

 

I'm sure i will get some..."this is COD science to coin a phrase speculation, theory and unproven", but is inherently plausable and common sense.

 

New policy has been formed and will continue to be revised regarding the porosity and drainage capabilities of our urban surfaces. Just how long do you think it will be before the big powers, the insurance groups, and environmental bodies work out that compacted soils are the same as non porous concrete and make decompaction etc a key managment goal in our urban green spaces?

 

Those that have the skills and the knowledge of decompaction and rhizoshpere dynamics are going to be in key positions to capitalise on this new wave of service development, I dont know about you lot in here, but I know where my bet is laid, and this is likely a bet against a bunch of one trick ponies!

[Paul Barton]

Good post Tony!

 

Are you working with Ron at Rhizoecology now?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Good post Tony!

 

Are you working with Ron at Rhizoecology now?

 

who is ron? as far as i know there is no ron at Rhizoecology?

 

as for working at Rhizo ecology my connection is loose, very, very loose and would rather let Andrew answer or rather clarify this position.

 

Put it this way, i am behind Rhizoecology 110% and if there is scope for it going fulltime it will be because I worked for it! the work is out there, i just have to go find it.

[Paul Barton]

Oh right. Ron (Ricketts) used to work for Andrew and I thought he now ran the air-spade works for him. Obviously not!

 

Just wondered why you had their website on your signature.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Oh right. Ron (Ricketts) used to work for Andrew and I thought he now ran the air-spade works for him. Obviously not!

 

Just wondered why you had their website on your signature.

 

Lets just say if you want the Hama doing your airspading its just a question of asking!

[David Humphries]

Edit.....Sorry to say it looks finished David...cant win em all I guess!

 

 

Here's a pictoral update, a year on down the line Tim

 

 

Firstly this has to be one of the best threads going, and glad i have found it, wicked thread monkeyD and I really do envy your working life and environment.

 

Yeah, I kinda like it Tony

 

 

.